^ °K'te  A JS 


Cj- 

• ' »*  ' 


. 


• • 


» X 


V • 


t 


V 


' *•  ‘ 


* 

• A 


► . .*  * 

* * 


r 


* ‘ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/memorialsofcathe00wood_0 


MEMORIALS  OF 
CANTERBURY 
CATHEDRAL 


MEMORIALS  OF 

THE  CATHEDRAL  fc?  PRIORY  OF  CHRIST 

IN  CANTERBURY 

by  C.  EVELEIGH  WOODRUFF,  m.a. 

SIX-PREACHER  OF  CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL  AND 
HONORARY  LIBRARIAN  TO  THE  DEAN  AND  CHAPTER 

and  WILLIAM  DANKS,  m.a. 

CANON  RESIDENTIARY 


WITH  ILLUSTRATIONS  BY 

LOUIS  WEIRTER, 

R.B.A. 


NEW  YORK 

E.  P.  DUTTON  & CO. 

31  WEST  TWENTY-THIRD  STREET 
1912 


Printed  by 

BALLANTYNE  & COMPANY  LTD 
AT  THE  BALLANTYNE  PRESS 
Tavistock  Street  Covent  Garden 
London 


PREFACE 


Although  much  has  been  written  about  Canterbury 
Cathedral,  the  interest  attaching  to  the  metropolitical 
church  is  so  great  that  the  appearance  of  another 
book  scarcely  calls  for  justification. 

The  plan  and  scope  of  the  present  work  will  be 
indicated  best  by  a few  introductory  words  on  the 
chief  printed  authorities.  Apart  from  picture-books 
and  guide-books,  of  which  there  are  scores,  good,  bad, 
or  indifferent,  the  bibliography  of  the  Cathedral  is 
not  really  extensive.  Somner’s  Antiquities  oj  Canter- 
bury, first  published  in  1640,  and  re-edited  and 
enlarged  by  Battely  in  1703,  is  a vast  storehouse  of 
materials  from  which  almost  all  subsequent  writers 
have  drawn  ; but  the  book  is  hard  to  come  by,  and 
does  not  yield  up  its  stores  readily  to  any  but  skilled 
workers.  Gostling,  whose  Walk  in  and  about  the 
City  oj  Canterbury  was  written  in  the  second  half  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  gives  an  excellent  description 
of  the  Cathedral  and  its  contents  as  they  were  in  his 
days  ; but  owing  to  the  advance  in  the  study  of 
architecture,  he  cannot  now  be  taken  as  a trustworthy 
guide. 

Willis,  on  the  other  hand,  in  his  Architectural 
History  oj  the  Cathedral , published  in  1845,  and  in 
his  History  oj  the  Conventual  Buildings  oj  the  Priory  oj 
Christ  Church , contributed  to  the  Journal  of  the  Kent 
Archaeological  Society  in  1868,  has  said  almost  the  last 
word  on  matters  structural,  and  the  present  writers 
gratefully  acknowledge  their  indebtedness  to  his 
masterly  treatises,  which,  however,  are  somewhat 

v 


PREFACE 

too  technical  for  the  ordinary  reader.  Moreover, 
historical  matter,  except  when  it  elucidates  an 
architectural  problem,  is  purposely  excluded. 

The  Chronological  History  oj  Canterbury  Cathedral , by 
George  Smith,  published  in  1883,  makes  a praiseworthy 
attempt  to  combine  the  historical  with  the  archi- 
tectural, but  is  a somewhat  dull  book,  inadequately 
illustrated  and  occasionally  inaccurate.  Stanley,  in  his 
Historical  Memorials  oj  Canterbury , selected  a few  of 
the  most  striking  episodes,  and  described  them  with 
much  grace  and  force  ; but  his  book  is  not  a history  of 
the  Cathedral. 

The  aim  of  the  authors  of  the  present  book  is  to 
give  a trustworthy,  readable,  and  compendious  account 
of  the  Cathedral  from  the  earliest  times  to  the  present 
day.  To  do  this  within  the  compass  of  a single  octavo 
volume  it  has  been  necessary  to  confine  the  range  of 
view  strictly  to  the  church  and  its  custodians.  Thus, 
since  the  book  does  not  claim  to  be  a history  of  the 
See  of  Canterbury,  little  is  said  about  the  Archbishops 
except  when  they  came  into  contact  with  the  de  jacto 
governing  body — prior  and  convent  before,  and  dean 
and  chapter  after,  the  Reformation.  To  write  a 
history  of  the  great  Benedictine  priory  of  Christ 
Church  would  require  a separate  volume  ; but  its 
fortunes  and  internal  economy  are  sketched  in  the 
following  pages  with  some  fulness  of  detail,  and  this 
we  believe  to  be  a distinctive  feature  of  the  present 
book.  Throughout  an  honest  attempt  has  been  made 
to  go  to  first-hand  sources  of  information,  and  the 
recent  rearrangement  of  the  Cathedral  archives  has 
opened  out  some  which  have  not  hitherto  been  avail- 
able. Full  advantage  has  been  taken  of  this  oppor- 
tunity, with  the  result  that  the  authors  have  been 
able  to  incorporate  in  their  book  some  fresh  matter, 
and  much  more  which,  if  not  absolutely  new,  has 
hitherto  been  known  only  to  a few. 

For  the  privilege  of  making  use  of  the  Cathedral 
vi 


PREFACE 

records,  and  for  permission  to  photograph  some  of 
the  seals  and  drawings  in  the  library,  the  authors 
express  their  deep  sense  of  gratitude  to  the  Dean  and 
Chapter. 

Their  thanks  are  also  due  to  Dr.  Fremantle,  Dean 
of  Ripon,  for  the  loan  of  MS.  notes  made  by  him 
some  years  ago,  when  a Canon  of  Canterbury,  with  a 
view  to  publishing  a book  on  the  Cathedral  ; to 
Mr.  Arthur  Hussey  for  a like  courtesy  with  regard  to 
his  notes  on  the  Priors  of  Christ  Church  ; to  Mr. 
S.  F.  Parry,  C.B.,  for  leave  (on  behalf  of  the 
executors  of  his  aunt,  Miss  Williams)  to  make  use  of 
the  blocks  prepared  for  that  lady’s  Notes  on  the  Stained 
Glass  oj  the  Cathedral  ; and  to  the  Warden  of  St. 
Augustine’s  College  for  permission  to  make  extracts 
from  the  Reminiscences  of  the  late  Prebendary 
Gilbert,  preserved  in  the  College  library. 


Vll 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  ROMAN-SAXON  CHURCH 


Christianity  in  Britain  before  the  Diocletian  persecution  : Canterbury 
the  Roman  Durovernum  : A Christian  Church  there  in  the  second 
half  of  the  fourth  century  : Destruction  of  Durovernum  by  the 
Jutes  : The  Gregorian  Mission  : King  Ethelbert’s  baptism  : The 
Roman  Church  “ recovered  ” and  dedicated  by  Augustine  : Ground 
plan  : Cuthbert’s  baptistery  : The  Cathedral  enlarged  by  Odo  : 
Origin  of  the  Confessio  : The  Church  sacked  by  the  Danes  : Murder 
of  Archbishop  Alphege  and  massacre  of  the  monks  : The  Church 
burnt  1067  : Representation  of  the  pre-Norman  Cathedral  on  the 
earliest  seal  of  the  Priory  : The  clerical  staff  of  the  Cathedral  in 
Saxon  times  : Saxon  archbishops  buried  in  their  Cathedral  Church  : 

pp.  I-19 


APPENDIX 


Eadmer’s  description  of  the  Roman  Saxon  Church  : Pre-Norman  deans 

pp.  19-22 


CHAPTER  II 

LANFRANC’S  NORMAN  CHURCH 

The  monastic  buildings  and  Cathedral  Church  rebuilt  : Christ  Church, 
Canterbury,  compared  with  St.  Stephen’s  at  Caen  : Ground  plan  : 
The  Angel  steeple  : John  of  Salisbury’s  verses  on  : The  Western 
towers  : Dedication  : The  Accord  of  Winchester  : Lanfranc’s 
reforms  : The  Archiepiscopal  Palace  rebuilt  : Death  of  Archbishop 
Lanfranc  : His  benefactions  to  the  Cathedral  pp.  23-35 


CHAPTER  III 
ANSELM’S  CHOIR 

Anselm’s  election  and  consecration  : The  Pallium : The  choir  lengthened  : 
Funds  raised  : Prior  Ernulf  : Description  of  Ernulf’s  work  : Death 
of  Anselm  : His  shrine  : The  choir  finished  by  Prior  Conrad  : 

ix 


CONTENTS 

Dedicated  by  Archbishop  William  : Gervase’s  description  of  the 
choir  : King  Stephen  crowned  in  Canterbury  Cathedral  by  Arch- 
bishop Theobald  : Financial  depression  of  the  Priory  : Theobald’s 
economic  reforms  : Carvings  added  to  the  capitals  of  the  pillars  in 
the  crypt  : Mural  paintings  : The  Treasury  built  : Prior  Wibcrt’s 
additions  to  the  monastic  buildings  : His  hydraulic  system  for 
supplying  the  Priory  with  water  : Canterbury  a studium 

generale  PP- 


CHAPTER  IV 

ST.  THOMAS  OF  CANTERBURY 

Early  training  : Character  and  appearance  : Election  to  the  primacy  : 
Quarrel  with  King  : The  murder  : Qen  ription  of  the 

martyrdom  transept  : The  King’s  penance  : The  translation  of  the 
Saint’s  relics  : The  shrine  : Pilgrims  : Miracles  : S of  his 
influence  pp.  57-88 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  REBUILDING  OF  Till,  CHOIR  U 1 1 R THE  GREAT 
FIRE,  BY  GUILLAUME  DE  SENS,  AND  WILLIAM  THE 
ENGLISHMAN 

Gervase’s  account  of  the  fire  : Guillaume  de  Sens  begins  the  recon- 
struction of  the  choir  : Progress  nude  during  the  lirst  three  years  : 
Accident  to  the  architect  : retirement  of  Guillaume,  and  appoint- 
ment of  William  the  Englishman  : The  Retro-Choir  : Chapel  of 
St.  Thomas  : Monks  enter  the  new  choir,  1180  : The  work  of  the 
two  Williams  compared  : The  corona  : Ground  plans  of  the  old 
and  new  choir  pp.  89-102 


CHAPTER  VI 

GROWTH  OF  THE  POWER  OF  THE  MONKS  OF  CHRIST 
CHURCH  AND  THEIR  STRUGGLE  WITH  ARCHBISHOPS 
BALDWIN  AND  HUBERT  WALTER 

Claims  put  forward  by  the  Prior  and  Chapter  of  Christ  Church  : Resis- 
tance of  the  monks  of  Rochester  : Election  of  Archbishop  Baldwin  : 
His  character  : Quarrel  with  the  monks  concerning  the  Archbishop’s 
proposed  foundation  of  a collegiate  Church  at  Hackington  : The 
Prior  appeals  to  Rome  : King  offers  to  arbitrate  : Baldwin  excom- 
municates the  monks  : Papal  mandate  for  the  destruction  of  the 
college  : Prior  Honorius  dies  in  Italy  : Death  of  King  Henry  II  : 


X 


CONTENTS 

Roger  Norreys  intruded  into  the  priorate  by  Archbishop  Baldwin  : 
King  Richard  I comes  to  Canterbury  : Archbishop  of  Rouen  to 
act  as  arbitrator  : Baldwin  leaves  England  for  the  Holy  Land  : 
Hubert  Walter  elected  to  the  primacy  : the  Archbishop  wishes  to 
found  a collegiate  Church  at  Lambeth  : Opposition  of  the  monks  : 
The  work  inhibited  by  the  Pope  : Bishop  Stubbs’s  summary  of  the 
contest  and  his  criticism  of  the  action  of  the  monks  pp.  103-116 


CHAPTER  VII 

FROM  THE  GREAT  EXILE  TO  THE  DEATH  OF  PRIOR 
HENRY  OF  EASTRY 

Gervase’s  account  of  the  death  of  Archbishop  Hubert  : Opening  of  his 
tomb  in  1890  : Contents  of  the  tomb  : King  John  seizes  the  Chapel 
of  the  late  Archbishop  : Monks  refuse  to  elect  the  King’s  nominee  : 
Exile  of  the  monks  : Their  return  in  1213  : Offerings  at  the  shrine 
of  St.  Thomas  during  the  exile  : Translation  of  the  relics  of  St. 
Thomas,  1220  : New  conventual  seal  : Landing  of  the  Friars  in 
England  : Stained  glass  windows  in  St.  Thomas’s  Chapel  : The 
Fra  ter  House  rebuilt  : Cloisters  remodelled  : Quarrel  between  the 
monks  and  Archbishop  Edmund  : A charter  tampered  with  : 
The  Archbishop  refuses  to  sanction  the  election  of  Roger  de 
la  Lee  to  the  priorate  : Death  of  Archbishop  Edmund  at 
Pontigny  : Building  work  carried  out  by  Priors  Roger  Lee, 
and  Roger  of  St.  Alphege  : The  Prior’s  Chapel  : Election  of  Arch- 
bishop Boniface  : He  attempts  to  reform  the  discipline  of  the 
Priory  : Resistance  of  the  monks  : Appeal  to  Rome  : Prior  Adam 
Chillenden  chosen  primate  : His  election  opposed  by  Prince 
Edward  : Set  aside  by  the  Pope  in  favour  of  Robert  Kilwardby : 
Visitations  of  the  Prior  and  Chapter  sede  vac  ante  : Feud  between 
the  monks  and  citizens  : Prior  Thomas  Ringmere  : His  abortive 
attempts  to  introduce  reforms  : Charges  made  against  him  by  the 
monks  : Resignation  of  the  Prior  : Henry  of  Eastry  elected  prior  : 
His  capacity  for  business  : His  building  operations  : The  Audit 
House  : Choir-stalls  : Doors  and  screens  in  the  choir  : The  Chapter- 
House  repaired  : A reliquary  for  St.  Thomas’s  head  : New  spire  on 
the  N.W.  tower  : Brewery  : Cheker  : Almonry  Chapel  : Tabula 
of  the  high  altar  : Notes  from  Eastry’s  correspondence  : Arch- 
bishop Winchelsey’s  shrine  : Prior  Eastry’s  relations  with  Arch- 
bishop Reynolds : Reynolds’  tomb  : His  benefactions  to  the  Church  : 
Visits  of  royal  persons : Marriage  of  King  Edward  I to  Margaret  of 
France  : King  Edward  II  comes  to  Canterbury  : Queen  Isabella 
leaves  her  hounds  in  the  charge  of  the  Prior  : Death  of  Prior 
Eastry  pp.  1 17-144 


XI 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  VIII 

FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  PRIOR  HENRY  OF  EASTRY  TO 
THE  ELECTION  OF  PRIOR  THOMAS  OF  CHILLENDEN 

Prior  Richard  Oxenden : Visit  of  King  Edward  III  : Gifts  from  the  Prior 
and  Convent : A new  window  erected  in  St.  Anselm’s  Chapel : Prior 
Robert  Hathbrand  : The  Black  Death  : A new  Frater  House  built 
in  the  Infirmary : The  Chancel  of  the  Infirmary  Chapel  remodelled  : 
The  monastic  kitchen  rebuilt  : The  “ Black  Prince’s  ” Chantry  : 
Work  done  to  the  Chapel  of  St.  Mary  in  the  Crypt  : Funds  raised 
for  rebuilding  the  Nave  : Funeral  of  the  “ Black  Prince  ” ; His 
tomb  : Achievements : Bequests  to  the  Church  : The  Norman  Nave 
pulled  down  by  Archbishop  Simon  of  Sudbury  : Murder  of  the 
Archbishop  : His  tomb  : The  rebuilding  of  the  Nave  continued  by 
Prior  Finch  : The  New  Guest  Chambers  called  “ Paradise  ” and 
“ Heaven  ” : Fall  of  the  Campanile  : Death  of  Prior  Finch  : His 
character  pp.  145-166 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  PRIORATE  OF  THOMAS  CHILLENDEN,  1391-1411 

Building  operations  : The  Nave  : Comparison  between  the  Naves  of 
Canterbury  and  Winchester  : Internal  arrangements  of  the  Nave  : 
New  Altar-piece  : The  Choir  whitewashed  : Rcpavement  of  the 
North  Aisle  of  the  Choir  and  South-East  transept  : New  lodgings 
for  the  Sub-Sacrists  : Reconstruction  of  the  Chapter  House  : the 
Great  Dormitory  new  roofed  : l pp^  r story  erected  over  the 
Water-tower  : New  Cloisters  : Chamber  over  the  Green  Court 
Gate  : The  Pentise  : Rebuilding  of  the  city  wall  between  North 
Gate  and  Queningate  : Canterbury  College  in  Oxford,  rebuilt  : 
And  the  Cheker  of  the  Hope  in  Mercury  Lane  : Ornaments  and 
vestments  acquired  during  Chillenden’s  priorate  : Bishop  Bucking- 
ham’s Chantry  : Lady  Mohun’s  Chantry  : Chillcndcn’s  embassage 
to  Pisa  : His  death  : Tomb  * pp.  167-186 


CHAPTER  X 


FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  THOMAS  CHILLENDEN  TO 
THE  SUPPRESSION  OF  THE  PRIORY 

Prior  John  Wodensburgh  : His  economic  reforms  : The  Great  Cloister 
finished  : Burial  of  King  Henry  IV  ; His  tomb  ; Opening  of  the 
xii 


CONTENTS 

tomb  in  1832  : Death  of  Archbishop  Arundel  : His  Chantry  : 
King  Henry  V comes  to  Canterbury  : Archbishop  Chicheley  : His 
tomb  : Lollardy  repressed  : Prior  William  Molash  : Rebuilding  of 
the  South-West  tower  : The  great  central  tower  commenced, 
1433  : Richard  Beek,  Master  Mason  : Cardinal  Beaufort  admitted 
into  confraternity  : Tomb  of  Lady  Holland  and  her  two  husbands 
in  St.  Michael’s  Chapel : Chamber  over  the  Chapel : The  Brenchley 
Chantry  : New  Lady  Chapel  erected  by  Prior  Goldston  I : Jack 
Cade’s  rebellion  : King  Henry  VI  at  Canterbury  : Archbishop 
Bourchier  orders  a thanksgiving  service  in  the  Cathedral  for  the 
capture  of  Henry  VI  : King  Edward  IV  presents  the  great  window 
of  the  North-West  transept  : Prior  William  Sellinge  : His  building 
operations  : City  wall  between  Burgate  and  Queningate  : Great 
Central  tower  : John  Wastell,  Master  Mason  : New  drainage 
system  : The  Christ  Church  Gate  erected,  1517  : Prior  Thomas 
Goldston  II  : His  gifts  to  the  Church  : The  scrutiny  of  the  shrine 
of  St.  Dunstan  : Archbishop  Warham’s  Chantry  : Prior  Thomas 
Goldwell  : The  affair  of  Elizabeth  Barton  : Dr.  Layton  comes  to 
Canterbury  : Fire  at  the  Prior’s  lodgings  : Destruction  of  the 
shrine  of  St.  Thomas,  1538  : Surrender  of  the  Priory  : Goldwell 
hopes  to  be  the  first  Dean  : On  the  appointment  of  Nicholas 
Wotton,  Goldwell  retires  with  a pension  pp.  187-221 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  INTERIOR  LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERY 

The  Benedictine  system  : Lanfranc’s  reforms  : The  Priors  of  Christ 
Church  : Election  : Jurisdiction  sede  vacante  : Reluctance  to  attend 
general  Chapters  of  their  order  : Privileges  : Lodgings  : Servants  y 
The  Precentor  : The  Sacrist  : Revenue  : The  Cellarer  : His  lodg- 
ings : Guest-Hall  : “ Meister  Omers  ” : Gifts  to  officials  at  Easter 
and  Christmas  : The  Chamberlain  : His  duties  : The  Dormitory  : 
De'portum  : The  Penitentiary  : Discipline  : The  Scrutatores  : The 
Treasurers  : Loans  from  the  Archbishop  : Fluctuations  of  income  : 
Offerings  to  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas : The  Almoner  : The  Maundy : 
Almoner’s  School : Novices  : The  Archbishop’s  School : Canterbury 
College  in  Oxford  : The  Infirmarer  : Infirmary  buildings  : 
Stationarii  : Fees  to  Surgeons  : Dead  monks  placed  on  a stone  in 
the  Infirmary  Chapel : Rules  for  the  Infirmary  : The  monastic 
kitchen  : Servants  and  their  wages  : Hours  of  Divine  Service,  and 
of  meals  : Study  : Carrels  in  the  Cloister  : Recreations  : Offerings 
of  the  brethren  at  Easter  : Fees  paid  for  sermons  : A list  of  the 
Priors  of  Christ  Church  pp.  222-271 


Xlll 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  CATHEDRAL  CHURCH  ON  THE  EVE  OF  THE 
REFORMATION 

The  visit  of  Erasmus  in  1513  : Description  of  the  Nave  : The  Martyr- 
dom : The  Crypt  : Reliquary  Cupboard  : The  High  Altar  : Orna- 
ments and  vestments  : St.  Thomas’s  Chapel  : The  Corona  : 
Arrangement  of  the  Choir  fittings  : Arras  hangings  : The  Lenten 
Veil  : The  High  Altar  : Patriarchal  Chair  : Relics  near  the  Side 
Altars : The  Measure  of  Our  Lady  : Relics,  and  Altars  pp.  272-286 


CHAPTER  XIII 

FROM  THE  NEW  FOUNDATION  TO  THE  PRIMACY 
OF  LAUD 

The  Incorporation  Charter  : Constitution  of  the  Collegiate  Church  : 
Cranmer’s  modified  scheme  : His  provision  for  the  sons  of  poor  men 
in  the  Cathedral  School  : Outline  of  the  history  of  the  King’s 
School  : Dean  Wotton  : The  Prebendaries  conspire  against  Cran- 
mer  : Richard  Thornden,  Bishop  of  Dover  : Church  goods  alienated: 
A turbulent  Canon  : Stained  glass  windows  destroyed  : Fire  at  the 
Palace  : Destruction  of  the  monastic  buildings : The  Chapter  House 
fitted  up  for  sermons  : The  Marian  reaction  : Ornaments  replaced  : 
Married  Prebendaries  deprived  of  their  stalls  : Death  of  Queen 
Mary  and  of  Cardinal  Pole  : Five  Prebendaries  refuse  to  take  the 
Oath  of  Supremacy  and  are  deprived  : The  Archiepiscopal  Palace 
rebuilt  by  Parker  : Ritual  in  the  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth  : Visit  of 
the  Queen  to  Canterbury  : Chapter  orders  relating  to  sermons  : 
Want  of  proper  supervision  of  the  fabric  : The  Walloon  and  French 
Protestant  congregation  in  the  Crypt  : Names  of  the  first  members 
of  the  New  Foundation  pp.  287-314 

CHAPTER  XIV 

FROM  LAUD  TO  THE  RESTORATION 

Character  of  Archbishop  Laud  : Preparations  made  by  the  Dean  and 
Chapter  for  the  Archbishop’s  first  visitation  : New  Altar  and 
ornaments  : Growth  of  Puritanism  in  Kent  : The  Archbishop’s 
visitation  articles  : The  Revised  Statutes  : Bowing  towards  the 
Altar  : A new  font  presented  by  Dr.  Warner  : The  pre-Reformation 
Fonts  : Laud’s  attempt  to  enforce  conformity  upon  the  French 
congregation  : Fall  of  a pinnacle  of  the  Great  Central  tower  : 
Sermons  to  be  preached  in  the  Choir  instead  of  in  the  Sermon- 


XIV 


CONTENTS 


House  : Violent  protest  by  the  Puritans  : Outbreak  of  the  Civil 
War  : The  Cathedral  looted  by  Colonel  Sandys’  troopers  : Dean 
Bargrave  imprisoned  in  the  Fleet  : Church  plate  sold  by  the  Dean 
and  Chapter  : The  Parliament  issue  an  order  for  the  protection  of 
the  Cathedral  : Destruction  of  stained  glass  windows  by  Richard 
Culmer  and  others  : The  Cathedral  estates  sequestrated  : Thomas 
Monins  appointed  Receiver -General  : Survey  made  in  1650  : 
Buildings  scheduled  for  destruction  : Church  plate  lent  to  the 
Independents  : The  Cathedral  services  reduced  to  a single  sermon 
on  Sundays  pp.  315-333 


CHAPTER  XV 

FROM  THE  RESTORATION  TO  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE 
EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

King  Charles  II  at  Canterbury  : Petitions  to  the  Dean  and  Chapter 
from  officials  of  the  Church  : John  Peirce,  Six-Preacher,  asks  for 
his  fee  for  a sermon  preached  before  the  rebellion  : The  Dean  and 
Chapter  recount  their  losses  : The  Christ  Church  Gates  restored  : 
Refitting’  of  the  Choir  : New  Altar  Screen  : Communion  Plate  : 
Money  spent  on  repair  between  1660-1670  : Money  raised  for  the 
redemption  of  captives  : The  Choir  wainscoted  : Picture  of  King 
Charles  I : A new  Altar-cloth  presented  by  Queen  Mary  : Hours 
of  Divine  Service  : John  Boy’s  description  of  the  Cathedral  in 
1675  : Removal  of  the  spire  from  the  Arundel  steeple  in  1704  : 
The  Choir  re-pewed  : Archbishop  Tenison’s  archiepiscopal  throne  : 
New  Audit-house  : New  Altar-piece  erected  by  James  Burrough 
in  1733  : Work  done  to  the  Corona  in  1748  : Rebuilding  of  the 
gable  of  the  South-East  transept  : Dean  Horne’s  destructive 
“ restorations  ” : The  Nave  repaved  : Correspondence  between 
Archbishop  Herring  and  the  Dean  and  Chapter  relative  to  the 
relics  of  St.  Anselm  pp.  334-353 

CHAPTER  XVI 

THE  CATHEDRAL  IN  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY 

Church  patronage  : Pluralities  and  nepotism  : Gilbert’s  reminiscences 
of  the  Canons  of  Canterbury  : Dean  Percy’s  “ restorations  ” : New 
Altar-screen  : Rebuilding  of  the  Arundel  steeple  : Repair  of  the 
Cloister  : Removal  of  the  Cemetery  Gate  : A new  Archiepiscopal 
throne  erected  from  the  designs  of  George  Austin  : Enthronement 
of  Archbishop  Sumner  : The  Ecclesiastical  Commission  : Canonries 
reduced  from  twelve  to  six  : Annual  income  of  the  Dean  and 
Chapter  : Houses  of  suppressed  Canonries  pulled  down  : Dean 
Alford’s  reforms  : Grant  by  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners  to 

b XT 


CONTENTS 

the  fabric  fund  : The  roof  of  the  Choir,  - 
repaired  : Statuary  placed  in  th  the  South  poi 

Cathedral  gasworks  : New  buildings  er  the  King’s  School  : 

The  wooden  staircase  leading  to  t r transept  replaced 

by  a stone  one  : The  Choir  i 1879  : The  fire  ol  is7-  : 

The  Dean  and  Chapter  decline  the  offer  of  the  Ecclesiastical 
Commissioners  to  administer  their  estates  : Work  done  to  the 
fabric  by  Dean  Farrar  : By  Dean  Wace  : Repair  of  the  Central 
tower  : The  Archiepiscopal  P . ilt  by  Archbishop  Temple  : 

Gifts  of  ornaments,  and  vestm<  nts  : P 

from  the  designs  of  Mr.  Bodley  : Revival  of  Church  life  in  the 
nineteenth  century  pp.  354—376 


CHAPTER  XVII 
THE  LIBRARY 

Founded  by  Archbuhop  Theodore  : It 

Reconstituted  by  Lanfran  : His  rules  for  1 
Fragment  of  a twelfth-century  catalog  ! ooks  in  the  library  : 

The  catalogue  compiled  in  1 1 I <try  : 

Evidence  that  Christ  Church  possessed  a . at  an 

date  : Wh  ted  : Inspection  of  the  books  temp  Prior  Oxen- 

den  : A n<  w library  built  by  Ai  1 : ’ 

Prior  by  William  Ingram  in  1508  : 

Reconstruction  of  the-  ment  of  the  mediaeval  library  : 

Estates  given  for  the  upkeep  of  the  library'  : The  Scriptorium  : Car - 
rels : Celebrated  book  proau  d at  Cant 

of  professional  scribes,  and  illuminators  : Cost  of  production  : 
Damage  done  to  the  books  b) 

the  Priory : Alienation  of  volum  1 by  Ar  hi  i hops  Parker  and  Whit- 

gift,  and  by  Dean  \ ' : Books  acquired  in  1 >rts  made 

in  1628  to  replenish  the  shelves  : Archbishop  Abbot’s  benefaction  : 

The  books  sent  to  London  by  the  Trustees  of  the  lands  of  Deans 

and  Chapters  : Ri  tun  1 

Monarchy  : Benefacrioi 

Warner  : A new  111  the 

Purchase  of  books  and  Somner’s  MSS. : Sancroft’sgift  of  duplicates 
in  the  Lambeth  Library  : Additions  made  in  the  eighteenth 
century  : The  Combe  t n of  carlv  printed  Bibles  : A new 

library  built  in  1867  : '1  OH  bequest  : 'l*hc  Muni- 

ments : Not  part  of  the  library  : Precautions  taken  by  Dean  Wotton 
for  their  preservation  : Di  of  hidden  MSS.  : A R 

book  in  private  hands  : Recovery  of  the  Muniments  at  the  time  of 
the  Restoration  : Damage  done  by  a fire  in  the  Audit-house,  1670  : 
The  Great  Catalogue  compiled  by  Cyprian  Bunce  in  1806  : Dr. 
J.  Brig?tock  Sheppard’s  K port  on  the  records  to  the  Historical 


CONTENTS 

MSS.  Commission  : Rearrangement  of  the  Collection  in  recent 
years  : A description  of  the  various  classes  of  documents  : The 
Monastic  Registers  : Registers  of  the  Dean  and  Chapter  : A list 
of  the  books  which  were  once  part  of  the  Conventual  Library  and 
are  still  preserved  in  the  library  of  the  Dean  and  Chapter 

pp.  377-404 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

THE  STAINED  GLASS  WINDOWS  AND  MURAL 
PAINTINGS 

The  Clerestory  windows  : The  Theological  windows  in  the  Choir  : 
The  Triforium  windows  : Rose-window  in  the  South-East  tran- 
sept : Windows  of  the  Trinity  (St.  Thomas’s)  Chapel  : Modern 
windows  : Wall  paintings  : St.  Christopher  in  the  Corona  : St. 
Eustace  in  the  South  Choir-aisle  : St.  Paul  at  Melita  in  St. 
Anselm’s  Chapel  : Frescoes  in  St.  Gabriel’s  Chapel  in  the  Crypt  : 
Scott  Robertson’s  description  of  the  subjects  pp.  405-444 

CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  CHOIR  AND  THE  ORGAN 

Provision  made  for  the  Choir  by  the  Statutes  of  Henry  VIII  : Paid 
singers  in  pre-Reformation  days  : Men’s  voices  continued  to  be 
used  for  the  Choir  offices  after  the  dissolution  of  the  Priory  : 
Plain-song  gradually  superseded  by  harmonised  compositions  : 
Instrumentalists  introduced  to  support  the  treble  part  : The 
Sackbutters  and  Corneteers  : The  organ  : Its  position  in  monastic 
days  : In  the  roof -loft  at  the  time  of  the  dissolution  : Rebuilt  in 
1564  in  the  North  Choir-aisle  : William  Selby  the  first  organist 
of  the  New  Foundation  : The  statutable  stipends  of  Minor  Canons, 
Lay  Clerks,  and  Chorister  Boys  : Poverty  of  Lay  Clerks  in  the 
seventeenth  century  : Their  petition  to  Archbishop  Laud  : Atten- 
dance at  three  daily  services  compulsory  in  1583  : Sufferings  of  the 
Lay  Clerks  at  the  time  of  the  Great  Rebellion  : The  organ  in  the 
Chapter  House  sold  by  the  Sequestrators  : Petition  of  Thomas 
Jones,  Lay  Clerk  at  the  time  of  the  Restoration  : Improvement  of 
the  stipends  of  the  Choirmen  : A new  organ  built  by  Lancelot 
Pease  of  Cambridge  in  1662  : By  Bernard  Smith  in  1683  : The 
organ  rebuilt  by  Richard  Bridge  in  1752  : Rebuilt  and  removed  to 
the  Rood-loft  by  Maurice  Greene  in  1784  : Removed  to  the  gallery 
of  the  South  Triforium  in  1827  by  Longhurst,  senior  : A new 
instrument  built  by  Henry  Willis  in  1886  : General  history  of  the 
Choir  : Litany  chanted  by  Lay  Clerks  until  1704  : The  substitutes 
abolished  in  1724  : “Precum  days,”  meaning  of  : The  Chorister 

xvii 


CONTENTS 

boys : Liberal  provision  for  by  the  Statutes : Liable  to  be  impressed 
for  service  in  the  Royal  Chapels  : A Grammar  Master  appointed  in 
1845  : The  Precentor  : His  statutable  duties  : The  Canterbury 
repertory  of  anthems  and  services  an  extensive  one  : List  of  the 
organists  : Specifications  of  the  organs  built  by  Lancelot  Pease, 
Bernard  Smith,  Richard  Bridge,  Maurice  Greene,  and  Henry 
Willis  pp.  445-470 


CHAPTER  XX 
THE  BELLS 

Bells  acquired  by  Priors  Ernulf,  Conrad,  Wibert  Eastry,  Hathbrand, 
Chillenden  : Archbishop  Arundel  presents  the  ring  called  by  his 
name  : Bells  sold  at  the  time  of  the  suppression  of  the  Priory  : 
“ Bell  Harry  ” : Antiquity  of  the  bell  : Perhaps  named  after  Prior 
Henry  of  Eastry  : The  bells  in  the  Oxford  steeple  : The  Clock  : 
“ Bell  Dunstan  ” : The  Arundel  ring  rehung  by  Thomas  Crust  in 
1634  : Taken  down  and  recast  by  Samuel  Knight  in  1726,  and 
rehung  in  the  Oxford  steeple  : Dimensions  of  the  present  ring 
of  ten  and  the  inscriptions  on  the  bells  : Rehung  in  1897  : The 
clock  chimes  pp.  471-476 


APPENDIX 

A list  of  the  Deans  and  Canons,  supplementary  to  that  printed  in 
Le  Neve’s  “ Fasti  Ecclesiae  Anglicanae  ” pp.  476-478 


Index 


pp.  479-490 


XY111 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


The  Cathedral  at  Twilight  Frontispiece 

St.  Augustine’s  Chair  ^ I 

Pillars  from  the  Saxon  Church  of  Reculver  7 

Conjectural  Plan  of  the  Roman-Saxon  Church  Facing  p.  io 

Church  and  Baptistery  of  S.  Appollinare  at  Ravenna  12 

The  Earliest  Seal  of  the  Prior  and  Convent  16 

Capital  in  the  Crypt  23 

Passage  from  the  Cloister  to  the  Infirmary  27 

Plan  of  Lanfranc’s  Church  (1070-1077)  Facing  p.  30 

The  North-West  Tower  ; and  ruins  of  the  Palace  in  1816  ,,  32 

Signatures  to  the  Accord  of  Winchester,  1072  ,,  33 

Capital  in  the  Crypt  36 

Plan  of  St.  Anselm’s  Church  before  the  Fire  of  1174  Facing  p.  40 
Ernulf’s  Crypt  ,,  41 

Ernulf’s  Crypt  (South  Aisle)  43 

Seals  of  the  Prior  and  Convent  of  Christ  Church  Facing  p.  45 

The  Treasury  i|  „ 50 

The  Norman  drawing  of  the  Cathedral  and  Conventual  Buildings, 


164 


Facing  p.  52 

53 

Facing  p 


The  Green-Court  Gateway 
Substructure  of  Water  Tower 
Transept  Tower 
Capital  in  the  Crypt 

The  Martyrdom  of  St.  Thomas  Facing  p. 

The  Tomb  of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury 

King  Henry  II  receiving  his  Discipline  at  the  Hands  of  the 
Monks  Facing  p. 

Site  of  the  Martyrdom  of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury 
Capital  of  Martyrdom  Door 
Capital  in  the  Crypt 

Substructure  of  Trinity  Chapel  (St.  Thomas’s) 

Ground  Plan  # 

Capital  in  the  Crypt  'I 
Capital  in  the  Crypt  i 
Third  Seal  of  the  Prior  and  Convent,  c.  1221 
Seal  of  the  Dean  and  Chapter,  1540 

The  Cloister  Doorway,  leading  to  the  Martyrdom  Transept 


54 

56 

57 
68 

71 


Facing  p. 


74 
84 
88 
89 

95 
101 
103 
116 

Facing  p.  123 
„ 123 

!25 

xix 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


Western  doorway  of  the  Prior’s  Chapel,  c.  1254 
Chapter-House  Door  Facing  p. 

The  Round  Water-Tower  and  the  Cheker  Building  „ 

Checker  Tower 

Seal  of  Archdeacon  Simon  Langton,  1245  Facing  p. 

Seal  of  Prior  Henry  of  Eastry  ,, 

Boss  in  “ Black  Prince’s  ” Chantry  Chapel 

The  Table-Hall  of  the  Infirmary,  c.  1342 

Ruins  of  the  Chancel  of  the  Infirmary  Chapel 

North  Window  of  the  Infirmary  Chapel 

Boss  of  Joan  Plantagenet  ? 

The  Black  Prince’s  Tomb  Facing  p. 

Capital  in  the  Crypt 
The  Nave 

The  Water-Tower  Facing  p. 

Doorway  from  the  Cloister  to  the  Infirmary 
The  Pentise 

Prior’s  Doorway  in  Dark  Entry 
Waterspout  of  the  South  Porch 
The  Cloister  (North  Side) 

Plan  of  the  Floor  of  the  Nave,  c . 1 786  Facing  p. 

The  Central  Tower  from  the  Cloister  „ 

The  Michaelmas  Fair  in  the  Precincts  „ 

Christ  Church  Gate  „ 

Ruins  of  the  Frater-House 

The  Cellarer’s  Door  in  the  Cloister,  and  the  Aperture  in  which 
the  Turn-table  was  placed 
Ruins  of  Cellarer’s  Hall 
Ruins  of  the  Hall  of  the  Infirmary 
Substructure  of  the  Cellarer’s  Gate  House 
Altar  of  the  Sword  Point 
Interior  of  the  Christ  Church  Gate 
The  Chained  Bible 

The  Deanery  Facing  p. 

The  French  Church  in  the  “ Black  Prince’s  ” Chantry  Chapel 
The  Font,  1639  Facing  p 

The  Christ  Church  Gate  with  the  arms  of  Archbishop  Juxon,  1661 
Panelling  in  the  Choir  Facing  p 

The  Choir,  1816  ,, 

The  Christ  Church  Gate  after  the  removal  of  the  Turrets 
The  Choir  Facing  p 

The  Nave 

The  Cathedral  from  the  “ Oaks  ” Facing  p 

The  Archbishop’s  Throne  „ 

The  “ Old  Palace  ” 

Archbishop  Juxon’s  Gates  (Inner  Face) 

XX 


PAG* 

129 

138 

139 

139 

144 

*44 

*45 

149 

153 

*55 

*57 

160 

166 

168 

176 

*77 

*79 

183 

*87 

189 

*95 

208 

209 
2*3 

23* 

235 
239 
253 
263 
273 
289 
294 
300 
309 
. 320 
339 

• 342 
348 

35* 

• 354 
357 

. 363 

363 

372 

373 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 

PAGE 

The  Cathedral  from  the  Stour  Valley  Facing  p.  384 

Methusaleh  from  a Window  in  the  Clerestory  407 

Enoch  from  a Window  in  the  Clerestory  41 1 

The  Rich  Men  of  this  World.  Window  II  20  413 

The  Parable  of  the  Sower.  Window  II  21  414 

The  Destruction  of  Sodom.  Window  II  20  415 

The  Three  Wise  Men  Riding.  Window  II  2 416 

Plan  of  Window  II  418 

Plan  of  Window  III  419 

1.  The  Earth  falls  on  William  of  Gloucester.  Window  I 13, 

Trinity  Chapel,  South  Side  426 

2.  Two  Men  bring  News  that  he  is  Dead  427 

3.  A Dismal  Groan  is  heard  428 

4.  Holy  and  Humble  Men  of  Heart  come  with  Spades  and  Country 

Tools  429 

5.  William  is  brought  out  430 

A Lady  offering  a coil  at  St.  Thomas’s  Altar.  Window  VI  21 

(South  Side  of  Trinity  Chapel)  431 

Nave  of  St.  Gabriel’s  Chapel  441 

The  Choir  School  (formerly  the  Monastic  Brewery)  459 


XXI 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  ROMAN-SAXON  CHURCH 

The  Cathedral  and  Metropolitical  Church  of  Christ 
in  Canterbury,  though  not  the  largest  English  cathe- 
dral— -York,  Lincoln,  Winchester,  and  Ely  all  exceed 
Canterbury  in  mere  area, 
and  the  two  first  named 
perhaps  in  grandeur  of 
design  as  well — appeals  to 
the  affections  and  histori- 
cal instincts  of  the  English 
people  with  peculiar 
directness  and  force.  It 
surpasses  even  West- 
minster Abbey  in  the 
closeness  of  its  connexion 
with  the  ecclesiastical 
history  of  the  English 
race.  “ What  the  Abbey 
is  for  the  history  of  the 
English  nation,”  said 
Dean  Farrar,  “ that  the 
Cathedral  is  for  the 
history  of  the  English  Church.”  It  occupies  a site 
perhaps  hallowed  for  Christian  worship  more  than 
fifteen  hundred  years  ago,  certainly  for  upwards  of 
thirteen  centuries  the  centre  of  the  ecclesiastical 
system  and  a focus  for  the  religious  aspirations  and 
inspirations  of  Englishmen.  Nor  is  the  Mother- 
Church  of  Canterbury  less  interesting  when  viewed  as 
an  architectural  document,  since  it  would  be  difficult 

A 


St.  Augustine’s  Chair 


I 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

to  name  any  building  which  can  afford  an  equally  com- 
plete illustration  of  the  evolution  and  development  of 
Gothic  architecture  in  this  country.  Although  the 
statement  will  require  some  explanation,  it  is  true  to 
say  that  during  the  last  fifteen  hundred  years  the  site 
of  the  present  fabric  has  been  occupied  by  two,  and 
by  only  two,  churches,  viz.  the  Roman-Saxon  church, 
built  probably  in  the  fourth  century  when  Britain 
was  still  a part  of  the  Western  Empire,  and  restored  by 
St.  Augustine  to  Christian  uses  at  the  beginning  of  the 
seventh  century;  and  the  Norman  church,  erected 
by  Archbishop  Lanfranc  in  the  days  of  William  the 
Conqueror.  With  the  latter  church  the  present  fabric 
may  claim  continuity,  since  there  has  never  been  a 
complete  and  simultaneous  rebuilding  of  all  its  com- 
ponent parts,  and  considerable  portions  of  Lanfranc’s 
work  still  remain  in  its  walls. 

The  Roman-Saxon  church  first  claims  our  attention. 
It  will  not  be  necessary  for  our  present  purpose  to 
retell  the  story  of  the  Gregorian  Mission.  Even 
Somner  in  his  “ Antiquities  of  Canterbury  ” — pub- 
lished as  long  ago  as  1640 — excused  himself  for  not 
entering  into  details  concerning  the  coming  of  Augustine 
and  his  fellow  monks  on  the  ground  that  the  story  was 
already  somewhat  “ trite  and  vulgar.”  Whatever  truth 
there  may  have  been  in  that  statement  two  hundred 
and  seventy  years  ago,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
the  pioneer  work  of  the  Apostle  of  the  English  has 
been  made  sufficiently  familiar  to  most  people,  es- 
pecially in  the  picturesque  pages  of  Stanley’s  “ Memo- 
rials of  Canterbury.”  For  the  moment,  at  any  rate, 
we  are  concerned  only  with  Bede’s  remarkable  state- 
ment that  when  in  the  year  602 — five  years  after  the 
Italian  missionaries  landed  in  Thanet — Augustine  felt 
that  the  time  had  come  for  him  to  set  up  his  cathedra 
in  the  Kentish  kingdom,  it  was  not  necessary  for  him 
to  build  a new  church,  but  merely  to  re-hallow  for 
Christian  worship  a church  which  already  existed. 

2 


THE  ROMAN-SAXON  CHURCH 

When  [writes  the  Venerable  Bede]  an  episcopal  see  had  been  given  to 
Augustine  in  the  King’s  own  city,  he  regained  possession  ( 'recu'peravit ), 
with  the  King’s  support,  of  a church  there,  which  he  was  informed  had 
been  built  in  the  city  long  before  by  Roman  believers.  This  he  conse- 
crated in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  and  God, 
and  fixed  there  a home  for  himself  and  all  his  successors.1 

That  the  Gospel  of  Christ  followed  in  the  wake  of 
the  Roman  legions,  and  even  penetrated  to  districts 
not  subjected  to  their  arms,  there  can  be  little  doubt. 
But  while  there  ma y have  been  churches  in  Britain 
even  in  the  second  century  of  the  Christian  era,  it  is 
unlikely  that  any  survived  the  debacle  brought  about 
by  the  persecution  of  the  Emperor  Diocletian. 

With  the  abdication  of  Diocletian,  however,  in  the 
year  305  the  danger  passed  away,  and  the  Christians 
were  again  able  to  meet  for  public  worship  and  to 
rebuild  their  ruined  sanctuaries. 

When  the  storm  of  persecution  had  ceased  [says  Bede],  the  faithful 
Christians,  who  during  the  time  of  danger  had  hidden  themselves  in 
woods  and  deserts  and  secret  caves,  appearing  again  in  public,  rebuilt 
the  churches  which  had  been  levelled  to  the  ground  ; founded,  erected, 
and  finished  the  temples  of  the  holy  martyrs ; and,  as  it  were,  displayed 
their  conquering  ensigns  in  all  places,  celebrated  festivals,  and  performed 
sacred  rites  with  clean  hearts.2 

Nowhere  in  Britain  would  the  revival  have  been 
likely  to  find  earlier  expression  than  in  that  south- 
eastern corner  of  the  island  which  was  occupied 
by  the  Cantii.  Kent,  owing  to  the  short  sea  passage 
across  the  Strait  of  Dover,  has  always  been  very 
favourably  placed  for  receiving  at  an  early  date  the 
civilisation  of  Europe.  Pioneers  have  ever  come  this 
way,  from  the  day  when  Caesar’s  galleys  struck  Deal 
beach  to  that  on  which  M.  Bleriot’s  monoplane 
swooped  down  on  Dover  Cliffs.  And  it  is  reasonable  to 
assume  that  the  earliest  Christian  missionaries  (who- 

1 “ The  Mission  of  Augustine,”  A.  J.  Mason,  Cambridge,  1897. 
Dr.  Mason  also  prints  the  original  Latin  from  Bede’s  Hist.  Eccl. , 
I.  xxviii. 

2 Bede,  Hist.  Eccl.,  lib.  I.  c.  8. 


3 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

ever  they  may  have  been)  followed  the  line  of  least 
resistance  and  landed  on  the  Kentish  coast.  If  they 
did  so,  it  is  practically  certain  that  they  would  have 
chosen  for  their  landing-place  one  of  the  three  great 
ports  which  guarded  the  coast  of  Kent.  But  whether 
Richborough  ( Rutufia ’),  Dover  ( Dubris ),  or  Lymne 
( Portus  Lemanis)  was  the  place  of  their  disembarkation, 
the  military  road  from  either  of  these  three  stations 
would  have  led  them  direct  to  the  Roman  town 
Durovernum , which  commanded  the  ford  over  the 
river  Stour. 

Durovernum  is  mentioned  in  the  Itinerary  of  Anto- 
ninus as  occupying  the  last  stage  on  the  Roman  road 
from  Londinium  towards  each  of  the  three  above- 
named  ports,  and  its  site  can  with  certainty  be  iden- 
tified as  that  of  the  later  citj  of  Canterbury.  The  area 
of  the  Roman  town  v as,  however,  le  than  that  of  the 
later  city,  and  did  not  extend  beyond  the  east  bank 
of  the  river.  Its  southern  and  eastern  boundaries 
seem  to  have  been  those  marked  out  by  the  mediaeval 
walls;  but  whereas  the  latter  are  continued  northwards 
in  a semicircle  until  they  meet  the  river  near  Abbot’s 
Mill,  the  Roman  wall  seems  to  have  formed  a right- 
angle  near  the  bastion  tower  in  the  garden  of  the  first 
prebendary  (now  the  residence  of  Canon  Danks), 
and  to  have  passed  through  what  is  now  the  pre- 
cincts very  near  to  the  south  side  of  the  present 
church. 

From  a military  point  of  view  Durovernum  was  not 
a place  of  great  importance,  for  the  situation  was  low, 
and  the  town  did  not  command  the  lowest  ford  on 
the  river;  but  its  position  at  the  junction  of  the  three 
great  military  roads  from  the  ports  marked  it  out  as  a 
convenient  trading-centre,  and  its  inhabitants  no  doubt 
at  a very  early  date  enjoyed  considerable  material 
prosperity  and  a well-ordered  social  life.  The  condi- 
tions were  thus  peculiarly  favourable  for  the  reception 
of  Christianity,  and  it  is  probable  that  in  Durovernum 
4 


THE  ROMAN-SAXON  CHURCH 

there  was  an  organised  Christian  community,  and 
possibly  a Christian  church,  before  the  close  of  the 
third  century  ; but  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  unlikely 
that  any  such  church  could  have  survived  the  Diocle- 
tian persecution.  When,  then,  was  the  Roman  church 
which  St.  Augustine  recovered  and  made  his  cathedral 
erected  ? Now  Eadmer,  a Christ  Church  monk  who 
lived  in  the  twelfth  century,  has  preserved  for  us  a 
description  of  the  Roman-Saxon  church,  and  it  is 
remarkable  that  he  compares  some  of  its  arrangements 
with  those  of  the  great  basilican  church  of  St.  Peter  at 
Rome.  He  had  been  to  Rome  in  the  company  of  Arch- 
bishop Anselm,  and  was  therefore  competent  to  insti- 
tute a comparison  between  the  two  buildings.  There 
were,  of  course,  very  considerable  divergences  in  the 
plan  of  the  two  churches,  to  which  reference  will  be 
made  later,  and  enormous  disparity  in  their  area,  but 
the  resemblance  was  sufficient  to  cause  Eadmer  to  say 
that  the  Roman-Saxon  church  of  Augustine  and  his 
successors  “ was  planned  to  a certain  extent  in  imita- 
tion of  that  church  of  the  blessed  Peter,  the  prince 
of  the  Apostles.”  1 

But  the  great  basilica  on  the  Vatican  was  not  com- 
pleted until  about  a.d.  330  ; it  is  therefore  evident 
that  the  Roman  church  in  Durovernum  could  scarcely 
have  been  built  prior  to  the  commencement  of  the 
second  half  of  the  fourth  century. 

If  this  be  accepted,  its  existence  as  a Christian 
church  could  not  have  been  of  long  duration,  for  early 
in  the  succeeding  century,  on  the  withdrawal  of  the 
Roman  legions,  the  south  eastern  corner  of  the  island 
was  overrun  by  devastating  hordes  of  pagan  Jutes, 
before  whose  onslaught  the  Christian  population  ran 
“ as  men  fly  from  fire.”  Durovernum , as  occupying  a 
central  position  in  East  Kent,  was  much  too  important 

1 Opuscula  Eadmeri  Cantoris,  Parker  MSS.,  Corpus  Christi  Coll., 
Cambs. ; and  quoted  by  Willis  in  his  “ Architectural  History  of 
Canterbury  Cathedral,”  London,  1845. 


5 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

a place  to  escape  the  ravages  of  the  invaders,  by  whom, 
no  doubt,  the  town  was  plundered  and  burnt.  For  a 
considerable  period  it  would  seem  that  the  site  lay 
desolate  without  inhabitant,  for  when  the  conquerors — 
discovering  at  length  its  geographical  and  strategic 
advantages — again  inhabited  it,  the  streets  of  the 
Saxon  town  did  not  in  all  cases  follow  the  line  of  their 
Roman  predecessors.1  Moreover,  the  very  name  of  the 
place  appears  to  have  been  forgotten,  so  that  when 
the  curtain  is  again  raised  Durovernum  has  become 
Gant-wara-byrig — -the  capital  or  fortress  of  the  men  of 
Kent.  The  Saxon  town  was  still  confined  to  the  eastern 
bank  of  the  river,  but  its  area  had  been  extended 
towards  the  north  by  continuing  the  wall  from  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  Burgate  to  the  Northgate  so  as  to 
enclose  what  is  now  the  northern  portion  of  the  pre- 
cincts of  the  church.  This,  of  course,  brought  the 
Roman  church  within  the  walls,  and  it  was  here  that 
the  Kentish  king  had  his  palace.  It  is  probable  that 
it  was  the  attraction  offered  by  the  solidly  built  walls 
of  the  church  and  its  adjacent  buildings — which, 
unlike  the  more  fiimsily  constructed  private  houses, 
had  escaped  destruction  by  fire — which  led  Ethelbert 
to  select  this  quarter  of  the  town  for  his  residence. 

He  had  been  king  for  nearly  forty  years  when  the 
Italian  Mission  landed  in  Thanet,  and  although  towards 
the  west  expansion  had  been  checked  by  the  growing 
power  of  Wessex,  he  ruled  over  a well-consolidated 
kingdom  and  exercised  a suzerainty  over  the  whole 
district  between  the  Thames  and  the  Humber.  For 
many  years  his  throne  had  been  shared  bv  Queen  Bertha, 
the  daughter  of  the  Christian  King  of  Paris,  whose 
chaplain,  Bishop  Luithard,  was  permitted  to  celebrate 
the  mysteries  of  the  Christian  faith  in  the  little  church 
of  St.  Martin  outside  the  city  walls.  All  these  were 
favourable,  predisposing  circumstances  which,  although 

1 “ Canterbury  till  Domesday,”  by  T.  Godfrey  Faussett,  in  the  Journal 
of  Arch.  Institute,  vol.  xiii. 

6 


Pillars  from  the  Saxon  Church  of  Re  culver 


THE  ROMAN -SAXON  CHURCH 

insufficient  in  themselves  to  account  for  the  rapidity 
and  permanence  of  St.  Augustine’s  work,  no  doubt 
contributed  towards  both*  In  Kent  the  Gospel  seed 
germinated  quickly,  and  was  less  subjected  to  the 
blighting  influences  which  elsewhere  often  destroyed 
the  crop  before  maturity  was  attained.  There  were 
fewer  relapses  to  heathendom  in  Kent  than  elsewhere  ; 
had  it  been  otherwise  the  metropolitical  see  would, 
in  accordance  with  Pope  Gregory’s  injunctions,  have 
been  established  in  London  and  not  in  Canterbury. 

Ethelbert’s  baptism,  on  Whit-Sunday  597,  was 
followed  by  the  conversion  of  many  of  his  subjects; 
but  it  was  not  until  five  years  later  that  Augustine  felt 
that  sufficient  progress  had  been  made  in  the  evan- 
gelistic side  of  his  work  to  warrant  the  establishment  of 
his  episcopal  see.  Canterbury,  as  the  capital  of  the 
Kentish  kingdom  and  the  seat  of  royalty,  was  obviously 
the  proper  place  for  the  cathedral  church.  It  is  not 
unlikely  that  Augustine  at  once  recognised  the 
original  purpose  of  one  of  the  principal  buildings 
attached  to  the  palace,  and  he  may  well  have  suggested 
to  his  royal  convert  the  surrender  of  what  had 
been  once  church  property  as  a suitable  act  of  repa- 
ration. If  we  may  trust  the  anonymous  author  of  the 
“ Life  of  St.  Augustine,”  Ethelbert,  in  the  fervour 
of  his  early  piety,  not  only  consented  to  restore  the 
desecrated  church  but  handed  over  the  whole  of 
the  royal  demesne  to  the  archbishop,  and  retired  to 
Reculver.  It  has  been  generally  assumed  that  the 
Roman  church  was  in  a ruinous  condition,  and  that  it 
was  either  rebuilt  by  Augustine  or  very  considerably 
enlarged  by  him.  But  it  is  unlikely  that  Ethelbert 
would  have  permitted  a dilapidated  building  to  en- 
cumber the  precincts  of  his  palace,  of  which  it  formed 
probably  an  integral  part.  Moreover,  Augustine’s 
life  was  only  prolonged  for  three  years  after  the  con- 
secration of  Christ’s  Church,  during  which  period  his 
attention  must  have  been  chiefly  directed  to  the 

9 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

church  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  which  was  in  course  of 
erection  outside  the  city  walls. 

But  although  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Roman 
church  was  rebuilt  or  enlarged  by  Augustine,  there  are 
reasons  for  believing  that  the  description  which 
Eadmer  gives  does  not  represent  the  church  as  Augus- 
tine found  it.  In  order  to  recover  the  original  plan  of 
the  church  it  will  be  necessary  to  examine  critically 
Eadmer’s  account  of  it.1  It  is  quite  clear  from  Eadmer’s 
description  that  the  church  w as  basilican  in  form — that 
is  to  say,  it  was  an  oblong  parallelogram  having  an 
aisle  on  either  side  of  the  central  hall  or  nave.  In 
Eadmer’s  days  it  had  an  apse,  or  semicircular  termina- 
tion, at  both  it  eastern  and  western  ends.  The  eastern 
apse  was  occupied  by  the  presbytery,  which  extended 
westwards  beyond  the  chord  of  the  apse  and  was  built 
over  a lofty  crypt,  or  confessio . Against  the  wall  of  the 
eastern  apse  was  the  high  altar,  and  in  front  of  it, 
set  on  the  chord  of  the  apse,  was  the  matutinal  altar. 

The  western  apse  was  occupied  by  the  altar  of  the 
blessed  Virgin  Mary,  behind  which,  against  the  wall 
in  the  centre  of  the  curve,  was  the  archbishop’s 
cathedra , or  throne.  About  half-way  down  the  north 
and  south  sides  of  the  church  and  projecting  beyond 
the  aisles  were  two  towers,  the  southern  forming  a 
porch,  or  side  chapel,  which  was  also  used  as  a law 
court;  the  nort  which  formed  part  of  the  cloisters, 
serving  as  a ch<  1 f<  r novices.  Now  the  double  apse — 
though  found  in  the  cathedral  churches  of  Treves  and 
Mayence  in  Germany  and  of  Nevers  and  Bcsan^on  in 
France,  as  well  as  in  the  great  monastic  church  of  St. 
Gall — did  not  form  part  of  the  plan  of  the  ancient 
St.  Peter’s  on  the  Vatican  or  of  soi  r of 

the  earliest  churches  in  Rome.  In  these  churches  of 
primitive  type,  the  narthex,  or  principal  entrance,  was 
at  the  east  end,  the  apse  and  the  high  altar  at  the 

1 A translation  of  Eadmer’s  description  of  the  Roman-Saxon  church 
is  given  in  the  appendix  to  the  present  chapter. 

10 


CONJECTURAL  PLAN  OF  THE 
ROMAN-SAXON  CHURCH 

The  unshaded  parts  show  the  extensions  made  in  Saxon 
times.  From  George  G.  Scott’s  Essay  on  “ English 
Church  Architecture  ” 


THE  ROM  AN-S  AXON  CHURCH 

west-end,  so  that  the  celebrant,  while  he  faced  the 
people,  faced  also  towards  the  east.  It  has  been  con- 
jectured, with  much  probability,  that  the  double  apse 
was  a later  development  of  the  primitive  single  western 
one,  and  that  it  had  its  origin  in  the  growth  of  the 
monastic  system. 

As  the  community  increased  in  numbers  the  choirs 
of  the  basilicas  (which  were,  of  course,  placed  in  the 
nave)  were  found  to  afford  insufficient  accommodation 
and  privacy.  The  difficulty  was  met  by  leaving  the 
original  altar  at  the  west  end  to  serve  as  the  people’s 
altar,  and  by  adding  at  the  east  end  a new  altar  for 
the  use  of  the  religious.1  Probably  then  the  original 
Romano-British  church  at  Canterbury  was  a short- 
aisled  basilica  with  a western  apse ; and  that  in  Saxon 
times  it  was  extended  eastwards  so  as  to  provide 
hn  altar  for  the  monks  and  a more  convenient 
choir.  This  lengthening  of  the  church  eastwards 
would,  of  course,  bring  the  flanking  towers — which 
probably  were  connected  originally  with  the  portico 
of  the  eastern  entrance — into  the  position  they  occu- 
pied in  Eadmer’s  day,  viz.  about  half-way  between 
the  eastern  and  western  extremities  of  the  church. 

The  earliest  recorded  addition  to  the  fabric  was 
made  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  after  the  death  of 
St.  Augustine,  when  Archbishop  Cuthbert  erected 
a smaller  church  in  close  proximity  to  the  eastern  end 
of  the  larger  one.  Eadmer  tells  us  that  the  new  church 
was  designed  to  serve  as  a baptistery,  a law  court,  and 
a mausoleum  for  the  Archbishop  and  his  successors.2 
From  the  fact  that  it  was  dedicated  under  the  invoca- 
tion of  St.  John  the  Baptist  we  may  infer  that  the 
principal  purpose  of  the  new  church  was  to  accommo- 
date the  crowds  of  catechumens  which  at  the  seasons 
of  Epiphany,  Easter  and  Whitsuntide  would  throng 

1 See  George  Gilbert  Scott’s  “ Essay  on  Church  Architecture,” 
London,  1881. 

2 Eadmer’s  Vita  S.  Bregtvini  in  Anglia  Sacra , p.  186. 


II 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

to  the  cathedral  church  for  Holy  Baptism.  And 
Eadmer’s  statement  that  the  baptistery  was  placed 
near  the  eastern  end  of  the  larger  church  seems  to 
suggest  that  the  principal  entrance  to  that  church 
was  still  at  the  eastern  end,  since  baptisteries,  like 
fonts,  in  later  times,  were  almost  invariably  placed 
near  to  the  church-doors. 

No  description  of  the  building  has  been  preserved, 
but  from  examples  which  are  still  extant  in  Italy  and 
elsewhere  of  early  baptisteries  it  may  be  conjectured 
that  it  was  either  circular  or  octagonal  in  plan,  and 
possibly  resembled  in  general  outline  the  baptistery 


Church  and  Baptistery  of  S.  Apollinare  at  Ravenna 

formerly  attached  to  the  church  of  S.  Apollinare 
Nuovo  at  Ravenna.1 

Very  considerable  building  operations  were  in  pro- 
gress at  Canterbury  during  the  archiepiscopate  of 
Wulfred  (805-832),  but  the  Archbishop’s  charter, 
which  makes  mention  of  “ rebuilding  and  restoring,” 
seems  to  refer  rather  to  the  conventual  buildings  than 
to  the  church  itself.2 

In  the  tenth  century  an  extensive  restoration  of  the 
fabric  of  the  church  was  carried  out  by  Archbishop 
Odo  (940-960).  It  is  true  that  Eadmer  docs  not  mention 

1 See  Professor  Baldwin  Brown’s  “ From  Schola  to  Cathedral,” 
P-  75- 

3 By  his  charter  dated  813  Wulfred  granted  certain  privileges  to  the 
monks  of  Christ  Church,  “ renouando  et  restaurando  pro  honore  et 
amore  Dei  sanctum  monasterium  Dorovorncnsis  ecclesiae  reaedificando 
refici  auxiliantibus  ejusdem  ecclesiae  presbyteriis  ac  diaconibus  cunctoque 
clero  Deo  servientium  simul.”  Cartularium  Saxonicum , W.  de  Gray 
Birch,  1880. 

12 


THE  ROMAN -SAXON  CHURCH 

an y alteration  of  the  ground  plan,  but  merely  records 
that  the  church  was  re-roofed  by  Odo  and  that  he  also 
raised  the  walls  “ to  give  it  a more  aspiring  altitude.”  1 
But  it  is  significant  that  not  many  years  previously 
several  very  notable  relics  had  been„acquired,  which  may 
have  caused  a demand  for  more  shrine  room.  Thus 
less  than  fifty  years  earlier  Archbishop  Plegmund  had 
brought  from  Rome  “ the  blessed  martyr  Blasius,”  2 
and  Odo  himself  had  recently  brought  from  Ripon  a 
portion  of  the  body  of  St.  Wilfrid.3  A third  acquisi- 
tion of  a similar  kind  was  the  relics  of  St.  Audoen 
(St.  Owen),  sometime  Archbishop  of  Rouen,  whose 
wonder-working  properties  had  been  carefully  tested 
before  they  were  deposited  at  Canterbury.  It  is  there- 
fore not  unlikely  that  the  lofty  crypt,  or  confessionary, 
at  the  eastern  end  of  the  church,  of  which  Eadmer 
makes  particular  mention,  may  have  been  constructed 
by  Odo  to  accommodate  these  newly  acquired 
treasures,  and  that  the  eastern  extension  of  the  church 
was  the  necessary  outcome  of  this  alteration.  The 
crypt  at  Canterbury  has  always  been  such  a prominent 
feature  of  the  cathedral  church  that  it  may  be  well  to 
say  something  here  as  to  the  origin  and  evolution  of 
the  confessionary  generally.  In  the  Early  Church  it 
was  the  custom  to  erect  a cell  outside  the  city 
walls  over  the  tomb  of  a martyr,  to  which  the  faith- 
ful might  resort  for  prayer.  At  a later  date  visits 
to  the  actual  burial-places  fell  into  disuse,  and  the 
Christian  community,  instead  of  going  out  to  honour 
their  martyrs,  brought  their  relics  within  the  city 
walls,  where,  instead  of  building  places  of  worship 
above  their  tombs,  they  dug  tombs  under  the  churches, 
in  which  the  precious  relics  were  deposited.  This  was 
the  origin  of  the  confessio  of  the  basilicas,  and  at  a 
later  period  of  the  crypts,  which  answered  the  same 

1 Vita  Odonis  in  Anglia  Sacra , vol.  ii.  p.  83. 

2 Gervase’s  Acta  Pontificum  in  Decern  Serif  tores,  p.  1644. 

3 Eadmer’s  Vita  S.  Wilfridi,  Mabillon,  vol.  iii.  p.  227. 


13 


CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL 

purpose.1  Their  original  purpose  as  a repository  for  the 
body  of  a martyr  or  confessor  was,  however,  entirely 
lost  sight  of  when  the  custom  was  introduced  of  raising 
the  bodies  of  saints  above  instead  of  placing  them 
below  the  sanctuary  floor,  and  setting  them  in  lofty 
shrines  instead  of  within  a narrow  crypt.  It  has  also 
been  pointed  out  that  those  great  mediaeval  churches 
which  have  crypts,  as  York  and  Canterbury,  represent 
in  so  far  the  Latin  tradition  ; those  which  are  without 
this  feature — as  St.  Albans,  Salisbury,  and  West- 
minster— follow  in  this  respect  the  traditions  of  Glas- 
tonbury and  of  the  early  British  Church.2 

During  the  fifty  years  that  followed  the  death  of 
Odo  there  is  no  record  of  any  change  in  the  fabric 
of  the  cathedra]  church.  But  in  ioii,  when  Alphege 
was  Archbishop,  the  city  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 
Danes,  and  the  Archbishop  and  monks,  in  order  to 
escape  the  massacre  which  wras  going  on  in  the  streets, 
sought  sanctuary  within  the  church,  the  doors  of  which 
were  barricaded  against  the  foe.  Thereupon  the 
Vikings  placed  empty  barrels  against  the  walls  of  the 
building  and  set  fire  to  the  pile,  by  which  means  they 
managed  to  ignite  the  rafters  of  the  wooden  roof. 
This  had  the  desired  effect,  for  when  the  melted  lead 
began  to  pour  down  inside  the  church  the  monks  were 
perforce  driven  out.  With  the  exception  of  four  who 
made  good  their  escape,  the  brethren  w'ere  put  to  the 
sword,  and  the  Archbishop,  after  suffering  many  in- 
dignities at  the  hands  of  his  captors,  was  cruelly  done 
to  death  at  Greenwich  seven  months  later.  The 
surrender  of  the  Archbishop,  however,  saved  the 
church,  for  Eadmer  tells  us  that,  though  grievously 
damaged,  the  church  was  not  entirely  destroyed  by 
the  fire,  which  seems  to  have  gone  out  after  consuming 
the  roof.3 

1 Baldwin  Brown,  of.  cit.  chapter  ii. 

2 G.  G.  Scott,  ut  supra , p.  71. 

3 Eadmer,  Epist.  dt  corpora  S.  Dunstani , Anglia  Sacra,  vol.  ii.  p.  225. 

H 


THE  ROMAN-SAXON  CHURCH 

The  body  of  the  murdered  Archbishop  was  ran- 
somed by  the  Londoners  and  deposited  with  all  reve- 
rence in  their  church  of  St.  Paul.  But  eleven  years 
later  his  relics  were  translated  to  Canterbury,  where 
they  were  enshrined  on  the  north  side  of  the  high 
altar,  in  the  presence  of  King  Canute  and  his  royal 
consort,  Queen  Emma.  As  an  expiatory  act  for  the 
misdeeds  of  his  fellow  countrymen,  the  King  laid  upon 
the  high  altar  his  crown  of  gold  and  the  Queen  pre- 
sented to  the  church  a chalice  of  the  same  precious 
metal.  In  later  times  the  crown  was  suspended  from 
the  beam  which  carried  the  great  Rood. 

But  although  the  ancient  church  survived  the  inten- 
tional incendiarism  of  the  Danes,  an  accidental  fire 
which  broke  out  in  the  city  and  spread  to  the  cathe- 
dral brought  its  career  to  a close  less  than  sixty  years 
later.  Indeed,  it  may  be  said  to  have  perished  with  the 
Saxon  dynasty,  for  the  conflagration  occurred  in  the 
year  after  the  Norman  Conquest  (1067),  though  in  no 
way  connected  with  that  great  national  event.  So 
complete  was  the  disaster  that  Eadmer  tells  us  that 
the  flames 

consumed  nearly  all  that  was  then  preserved  most  precious,  whether  in 
ornaments  of  gold,  of  silver,  or  of  other  materials,  or  in  sacred  and  pro- 
fane books.  Amongst  which  were  the  muniments,  the  bulls  of  Popes, 
and  the  charters  of  kings  carefully  sealed  and  collected  together — all 
for  ever  reduced  to  ashes. 

For  three  years  the  blackened  ruins  of  the  church  were 
left  standing,  but  with  the  advent  of  the  new  Norman 
Archbishop  all  vestiges  of  the  Roman-Saxon  church 
were  swept  away.  The  materials  of  which  it  was 
composed  were  doubtless  re-used,  for  this  was  the  usual 
practice  when  a church  was  destroyed,  but  probably 
chiefly  to  form  the  cores  of  the  massive  Norman  piers 
and  walls  of  the  new  sanctuary.  According  to  Eadmer 
the  very  foundations  of  the  old  church  were  eradicated 
by  Lanfranc ; but  whether  this  was  actually  the  case 
or  not,  they  are  not  likely  to  be  recovered,  since  they 

IS 


CANTERBURT CATHEDRAL 


must  lie  within  the  area  of  the  present  church.  A 
few  fragments  of  Roman  tile  are  to  be  seen  here  and 
there  built  into  the  walls  of  those  portions  of  the 
conventual  buildings  which  have  survived  from  early 
Norman  times,  but  these  are  the  sole  memorials  of 
the  Roman-Saxon  church.  It  is,  however,  possible 
that  an  illustration  of  the  pre-Norman  church  is 
still  preserved  in  the  impression  of  the  earliest  con- 
ventual seal.  Although  attached  to  a document  of 


the  twelfth  century,  the  impression  seems  to  show  a 
church  having  a double  apse  and  an  entrance  through 
a low  tower,  or  lofty  porch,  about  midway  between 
its  eastern  and  western  extremities,  which  may  repre- 
sent the  “ Suthdore  ” described  bv  Eadmer.  It  is 
true  that  Camden  and  others  assert  that  seals  were  not 
used  in  pre-Norman  timeu,  but  it  seems  inconceivable 
that  the  cathedral  and  metropolitical  church  of  Can- 
terbury did  not  possess  a seal  at  an  earlier  date,  and  if 
so  the  old  matrix  may  very  well  have  remained  in  use 
for  many  years  after  the  church  represented  thereon 
had  passed  away. 

Before  we  discuss  the  architectural  history  of  Lan- 
franc’s  church,  it  may  be  convenient  to  give  here  some 
16 


The  Earliest  Seal  of  the  Prior  and  Convent 


THE  ROMAN-SAXON  CHURCH 

brief  description  of  the  'personnel  attached  to  it 
predecessor. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  substitution  of  secular 
canons  for  Benedictine  monks  by  Henry  VIII  merely 
reversed  the  reform  carried  out  by  Archbishop  Lan- 
franc,  who  replaced  the  secular  clergy  by  regulars. 
But  such  a statement  requires  considerable  modification 
to  bring  it  into  line  with  actual  fact.  Christ  Church, 
Canterbury,  was  monastic  in  its  origin,  and,  writh  the 
exception  of  a short  interval  when  a pestilence  well- 
nigh  exterminated  the  monks,  it  continued  to  be 
served  by  monks  during  the  whole  of  the  Saxon  period. 
It  is  true  that  its  monastic  character  was,  in  a sense, 
accidental.  A missionary  bishop,  himself  a monk, 
accompanied  by  a staff  of  monks,  settled  in  Canter- 
bury, and  the  latter  became  the  clergy  of  the  bishop’s 
church.  The  church  itself  was  called  a monastery, 
and  the  charters  which  conveyed  to  the  community 
lands  or  privileges  were  addressed  to  the  “ family” 
( families ) serving  God  in  the  Church  of  our  Saviour. 
But  the  essential  character  of  its  inmates  was  priestly, 
not  monastic.  In  course  of  time,  as  the  country  became 
more  generally  Christianised,  a settled  clergy  unbound 
by  monastic  rules  took  charge  of  the  outlying  districts, 
and  no  doubt  from  time  to  time  these  secular  clerks 
formed  part  of  the  entourage  of  the  Archbishop,  who, 
however,  during  the  whole  of  the  Saxon  period  shared 
in  the  common  life  of  the  monastery.  Their  presence 

would  naturallv  tend  to  a relaxation  of  the  Benedic- 
* 

tine  rule — never  a very  strict  one — until  no  great 
difference  could  be  distinguished  between  those  who 
were  under  vows  and  those  who  wTere  not.  Bishop 
Stubbs  goes  as  far  as  to  say  that  by  942  it  is  doubtful 
whether  there  were  any  real  Benedictines  in  England, 
since  Odo,  and  probably  Dunstan,  when  desirous  of 
restoring  the  true  discipline,  sought  the  knowledge 
of  it,  not  in  England,  but  at  Fleury  in  France.1 

1 Introduction  to  Epstol ce  Cantuar , R.S.,  vol.  xxxviii. 

B 


17 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Dunstan’s  predilection  for  monasticism  is  well  known, 
but  it  is  remarkable  that  the  reforms  which  he 
inaugurated  with  so  much  zeal  elsewhere  do  not 
seem  to  have  extended  to  his  own  cathedral  church. 
The  work  of  restoring  the  monastic  character  of  the 
staff  of  Christ  Church  was  left  to  Archbishop  iElfric, 
who  succeeded  to  the  See  of  Canterbury  in  995. 

The  Saxon  Chronicle  relates  tljat  when  iElfric  came 
to  Canterbury  “ he  was  received  by  those  men  in 
orders  who  of  all  were  most  distasteful  to  him,  namely, 
by  clerks.”  The  Archbishop  at  once  summoned  an 
inquest  of  the  oldest  and  wisest  men,  both  ecclesias- 
tical and  lay,  to  inquire  into  the  right  and  title  of 
these  officiating  clerks.  After  due  deliberation  the 
jury  found  that  according  to  the  Pope’s  directions  to 
St.  Augustine  the  “ inhabitants  ” of  Christ  Church 
should  always  be  of  the  same  order  as  those  first  sent 
to  effect  the  conversion  of  the  people  ; and  that  this 
had  been  so  until  the  days  of  Archbishop  Ceolnoth 
(833),  when,  after  a great  mortality  had  carried  off 
all  the  monks  except  five,  the  Archbishop  had  been 
constrained  to  allow  his  church  to  be  served  by  secular 
priests.1  iElfric  at  once  determined  upon  the  ejection 
of  the  intruders,  and,  having  obtained  the  Pope’s  | 
sanction  to  the  reform,  when  he  visited  Rome  for  his  . 
pall,  it  was  duly  carried  out  on  his  return  to  Canter- 
bury. Thereafter  monks  alone  formed  the  cathedral 
staff,  though  it  is  uncertain  how  far  they  conformed  to 
the  standard  set  by  St.  Benedict.  As  Lanfranc’s  estab- 
lishment  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  monks  is  said  to 
have  tripled  the  number  formerly  attached  to  Christ 
Church,  the  original  number  was  fifty.  Although  in  | 
Saxon  times  the  head  of  the  monastery  was  called  I 
dean  instead  of  prior,  the  title  indicated  no  difference 
in  the  extent  of  authority  exercised,  and  was  in  use] 
at  the  same  period  in  the  convents  of  Worcester, 
Hyde,  Glastonbury,  and  St.  Edmundsbury,  as  well  as  > 

1 A.S.  Chron.,  Thorpe,  ii.  p.  108. 

18 


THE  R OMAN-SAXON  CHURCH 

at  Canterbury.  Henry,  the  last  dean,  became  the 
first  prior  of  Lanfranc’s  new  foundation. 

Nineteen  Saxon  archbishops  were  buried  within  the 
walls  of  their  cathedral  church.  Augustine  had,  in 
accordance  with  Roman  custom,  provided  a place  of 
interment  for  himself  and  his  successors  outside  the 
city  walls,  and  he  and  the  next  nine  archbishops  were 
laid  to  rest  in  the  church,  or  cemetery,  of  SS.  Peter 
and  Paul  (St.  Augustine’s).  Cuthbert,  the  eleventh 
archbishop,  obtained  the  Papal  sanction  for  inter- 
ments in  the  cathedral  church,  and  by  a subterfuge 
the  monks  of  Christ  Church  laid  his  remains  there 
in  spite  of  the  remonstrances  of  the  inmates  of  the 
rival  house.  With  the  exception  of  Jaenbert,  who  had 
been  Abbot  of  St.  Augustine’s  and  was  on  that  account 
allowed  to  find  a resting-place  there ; Robert,  who  for 
a like  reason  was  buried  at  Jumieges ; and  the  deposed 
Stigand,  who  died  and  was  buried  at  Winchester ; the 
rest  of  the  archbishops  of  Anglo-Saxon  times  were 
interred  in  their  own  cathedral  church. 

C.  E.  W. 

APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  I 

EADMER’S  DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  ROMAN-SAXON 
CATHEDRAL 1 

“ This  was  that  very  church  which  had  been  built  by 
Romans , as  Bede  witnesses  in  his  history , and  which  was 
duly  arranged  in  some  'parts  in  imitation  of  the  Church 
of  the  blessed  Prince  of  the  Apostles , Peter , in  which  his 
holy  relics  are  exalted  by  the  veneration  of  the  whole 
world . The  venerable  Odo  had  translated  the  body  of 
the  blessed  Wilfrid , Archbishop  of  York,  from  Ripon  to 

1 De  reliquiis  S.  Audoeni,  &c.,  MS.  Corpus  Christi  Coll.,  Cambs. 
p.  441,  and  Gervase,  De  Combustione  ; the  translation  is  from  Willis’s 
“Architectural  History  of  Canterbury  Cathedral.” 


l9 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Canterbury , and  had  worthily  placed  it  in  a more  lofty 
receptacle , to  use  his  own  words — that  is  to  say , in  the 
great  altar  which  was  constructed  of  rough  stones  and 
mortar , close  to  the  wall  at  the  eastern  part  of  the  presby- 
tery. Afterwards  another  altar  was  placed  at  a conve- 
nient distance  before  the  aforesaid  altar , and  dedicated 
in  honour  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ , at  which  altar  the 
divine  mysteries  were  daily  celebrated.  In  this  altar  the 
blessed  Elphege  had  solemnly  deposited  the  head  of 
St.  Swithin , which  he  had  brought  with  him  when  he 
was  translated  from  Winchester  to  Canterbury , and  also 
many  relics  of  other  saints.  To  reach  these  altars , a 
certain  crypt  which  the  Romans  call  a confessionary  had 
to  be  ascended  by  means  of  several  steps  from  the  choir  of 
singers.  This  crypt  was  fabricated  beneath  in  the  likeness 
of  the  Confessionary  of  St.  Peter , the  vault  of  which  was 
raised  so  high  that  the  part  above  could  only  be  reached 
by  many  steps.  Within , this  crypt  had  at  the  east  an 
altar , in  which  was  enclosed  the  head  of  the  blessed 
Furseus,  as  of  old  it  was  asserted.  Moreover , the  single 
passage  (of  entrance ),  which  ran  westward  from  the  curved 
part  of  the  crypt,  reached  from  thence  up  to  the  resting- 
place  of  the  blessed  Dunstan , which  was  separated  from 
the  crypt  itself  by  a strong  wall  ; for  that  holy  father  was 
interred  before  the  aforesaid  steps  at  a great  depth  in  the 
ground , and  at  the  head  of  the  saint  stood  the  matutinal 
altar.  Thence  the  choir  of  singers  was  extended  westward 
into  the  body  (aula)  of  the  church , and  shut  out  from  the 
multitude  by  a decent  enclosure. 

“ In  the  next  place , beyond  the  middle  of  the  length  of 
the  body,  there  were  two  towers  which  projected  beyond 
the  aisles  of  the  church.  The  south  tower  had  an  altar 
in  the  midst  of  it,  which  was  dedicated  to  the  blessed 
Pope  Gregory.  At  the  side  was  the  principal  door  of  the 
church,  which  of  old  by  the  English  and  even  now  is  called 
the  Suthdure,  and  is  often  mentioned  by  this  name  in  the 
law-books  of  the  ancient  kings.  For  all  disputes  from 
the  whole  kingdom,  which  cannot  legally  be  referred  to  the 
20 


THE  ROMAN -SAXON  CHURCH 

King's  Court  or  to  the  hundreds  or  counties , do  in  this 
place  receive  judgment . Opposite  to  this  tower  and  on 
the  north , there  was  another  tower  in  honour  of  the 
blessed  Martin , and  had  about  it  cloisters  for  the  use  of 
the  monks.  And  as  the  first  tower  was  devoted  to  legal 
contentions  and  judgments  of  this  world , so  in  the  second 
the  younger  brethren  were  instructed  in  the  knowledge 
of  the  offices  of  the  church , for  the  different  seasons  and 
hours  of  the  day  and  night. 

“ The  extremity  of  the  church  was  adorned  by  the 
oratory  of  Mary , the  blessed  Mother  of  God , which  was 
so  constructed  that  access  could  only  be  had  to  it  by  steps. 
At  its  eastern  part  there  was  an  altar  consecrated  to  the 
worship  of  that  Lady , which  had  within  it  the  head  of 
the  blessed  virgin  Austroberta.  When  the  priest  per- 
formed the  divine  mysteries  at  this  altar  he  had  his  face 
turned  to  the  east , towards  the  people  who  stood  below. 
Behind  him  to  the  west  was  the  pontifical  chair , con- 
structed with  handsome  workmanship  and  of  large  stones 
and  cement , and  far  removed  from  the  Lord's  table , being 
contiguous  to  the  wall  of  the  church  which  embraced  the 
entire  area  of  the  building.  And  this  was  the  plan  of  the 
church  of  Canterbury ." 


PRE-NORMAN  [DEANS  OF  CANTERBURY 

The  following  list  was  compiled  by  Mr.  W.  G . Searle 
and  printed  in  his  edition  of  “ Stone's  Chronicle  " for 
thi Cambridge  Antiquarian  Society , 1902: 

C.  798.  Cuba. 

C.  805.  BeornhearcL 
C.  813.  Heahfrith. 

C.  830.  Ceolnoth  (Archbishop  833-70). 

C.  860.  iEthelwine. 

C.  871.  Eadmund. 

C.  1015.  ^Ethelnoth  (Archbishop  1020-38). 


21 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 
C . 1020.  Godric. 

C.  1055.  iEthelric  (bishop  of  Selsey  1058-70). 
C.  1070.  Henry. 

The  following  names  have  no  date  assigned  to  them  : 


JSlfric. 


iElfwine  II. 

Kynsige. 

Maurice. 


iElfsige. 
^Elfwine  I. 


22 


CHAPTER  II 

LANFRANC’S  NORMAN  CHURCH 


The  condition  of  the  metropolitical  church  and  its 
surroundings  when  Lanfranc  first  set  foot  in  Canter- 
bury was  by  no  means  inspiriting.  The  new  Arch- 
bishop found  his  ecclesia  a 
mere  mass  of  blackened 
ruins  and  its  staff  of  clergy 
represented  by  a few  monks 
of  lax  life,  who,  moreover, 
for  the  moment  were  almost 
without  a lodging.  The 
difficulties  of  his  position  at 
first  filled  Lanfranc  with 
despair,  but  he  quickly  shook 
off  his  feelings  of  depression, 
and  in  spite  of  his  years — he  was  sixty-five  when  he 
succeeded  to  the  Primacy — set  himself  resolutely  to 
a task  which  might  well  have  daunted  a much 
younger  man.  His  first  care  was  to  provide  accommo- 
dation for  the  burnt-out  monks.  With  the  exception 
of  the  refectorium  or  f rater- house,  the  dormitory  and 
that  part  of  the  cloister  alley  which  lay  between  them, 
none  of  the  conventual  buildings  were  deemed  worthy 
of  preservation,  and  they  were  forthwith  demolished. 
The  old/f#tef-house,  which  had  escaped  the  ravages  of 
the  fire,  was  temporarily  fitted  up  for  divine  service 
during  the  rebuilding  of  the  cathedral ; but  since 
Lanfranc  intended  to  treble  the  number  of  monks, 
an  entire  set  of  new  buildings  was  rendered  necessary, 
and  when  this  was  done  the  whole  of  the  monastic 

23 


CANTERBURr CATHEDRAL 

precinct  was  enclosed  within  a substantially  built 
stone  wall.1 

When  this  had  been  accomplished  the  Archbishop 
turned  his  attention  to  the  church  itself.  The  fabric 
seems  to  have  been  patched  up  sufficiently  to  allow 
the  Archbishop’s  consecration  to  take  place  within  its 
tottering  walls  on  August  29,  1070,  but  a survey  of  its 
condition  convinced  him  that  age  and  the  fire  com- 
bined had  rendered  the  old  church  “ completely  un- 
serviceable.” He  therefore,  in  the  words  of  Eadmer, 
“ destroyed  it  utterly  ” and  “ set  about  to  erect  a 
more  noble  one,  and  in  the  space  of  seven  years  he 
raised  this  church  from  the  foundations,  and  rendered 
it  nearly  perfect.” 1 The  work  was  commenced  (as 
was  customary  in  the  Middle  Ages)  at  the  east  end, 
since  Eadmer  tells  us  that  Lanfranc,  before  the  work 
was  begun,  caused  the  bodies  of  the  saints  to  be 
removed  from  their  shrines  near  the  high  altar  to  the 
western  end  of  the  church,  “ where  the  oratory  of  the 
blessed  Virgin  Mary  stood.”  This  would  seem  to  show 
that  the  western  part  of  the  church,  at  any  rate,  was 
not  quite  in  such  a ruinous  condition  as  Eadmer 
implies,  and  it  is  a matter  for  regret  that  the  western 
apse,  “ that  venerable  relic  of  a Christianity  older 
than  St.  Augustine,”  was  not  incorporated  in  the  new 
design.  Mediaeval  builders,  however,  were  seldom 
influenced  by  any  antiquarian  sentiment  in  favour  of 
the  work  of  their  predecessors ; and  of  course  there 
was  this  difficulty  about  preserving  the  ancient  apse, 
that  Lanfranc  wished  to  give  his  new  church  consider- 
able extension  towards  the  west  while  retaining  (in 
accordance  with  custom)  the  high  altar  in  its  original 
position.  Hence  as  the  work  proceeded  westwards  the 
old  church  was  gradually  demolished. 

Lanfranc  w’as  not  without  experience  in  church 
building,  since  six  years  before  he  came  to  Canterbury 

1 William  of  Malmsbury,  Gesta  Pontificum , R.S.,  p.  69. 

* Eadmer,  Hist.  Nov.,  i.  p.  7. 


24 


LANFRANC’S  NORMAN  CHURCH 

he  had  set  out  the  ground  plan  of  the  great  monastic 
church  of  St.  Stephen  at  Caen,  in  Normandy,  of  which 
he  had  been  appointed  by  Duke  William  the  first 
abbot.  Possibly  he  may  have  been  personally  respon- 
sible for  the  whole  design  of  that  church.  However 
that  may  have  been,  the  plan  and  dimensions  of 
St.  Stephen’s  were  reproduced  with  remarkable  exacti- 
tude at  Christ  Church.  The  choirs  of  both  churches 
were  rebuilt  in  the  twelfth  century,  but  the  nave  of 
St.  Stephen’s  at  Caen  remains  to-day  much  as  the 
Norman  masons  left  it.  It  has  eight  bays  (the  same 
number  that  Canterbury  possesses  to-day)  with  a 
western  facade  and  flanking  towers  ; north  and  south 
transepts  of  two  unequal  bays  with  apsidal  chapels  in 
their  eastern  walls,  and  a gallery  in  each  across  the  outer 
bay  supported  by  a massive  pillar  ; and  a low  lantern 
tower  at  the  crossing.  It  is  quite  clear,  from  Eadmer’s 
description,  that  all  these  features  were  reproduced  by 
Lanfranc  at  Canterbury.  Moreover,  the  architectural 
style  of  both  churches  was  the  same  ; in  both  the 
rounded  arch  and  massive  pier  conspicuous  in  the 
romanesque  buildings  of  the  Archbishop’s  native 
Lombardy  reappeared  in  that  modified  form  which 
had  recently  been  adopted  by  the  people  of  his  northern 
home.  Nor  was  it  only  for  the  design  of  his  new  cathe- 
dral church  that  Lanfranc  was  indebted  to  Normandy, 
but  also  for  much  of  the  material  of  which  it  was 
constructed.  The  quarries  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Caen  produced  an  excellent  freestone  for  the  ashlar 
work.  Water  carriage  was  cheap,  and  the  Archbishop’s 
barges  could  discharge  their  freights  at  the  convent’s 
quay  at  Fordwich,  within  two  miles  of  Canterbury. 
From  the  eleventh  century  to  the  nineteenth  Caen 
stone  retained  its  popularity  at  Canterbury,  and  was 
used  in  all  the  successive  rebuildings  and  repairings  of 
the  cathedral  until  quite  recent  times.  Lately,  how- 
ever, it  has  been  thought  that  under  the  atmospheric 
conditions  of  to-day  the  stone  shows  a tendency  to 

25 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

rapid  disintegration,  and  renewals  have  been  made 
with  Doulting  stone  from  the  Somersetshire  quarries. 
For  the  crowns  of  the  vaults,  and  for  inside  work 
intended  to  be  covered  with  plaster,  Lanfranc  made 
much  use  of  a light  calcareous  stone  called  tufa,  which 
is  still  to  be  found  in  mid-Kent  and  elsewhere,  but 
which  went  out  of  fashion  as  a building  stone  early  in 
the  twelfth  century,  so  that  its  presence  may  be  taken 
as  evidence  of  early  Norman  work.  Much  tufa  occurs 
at  Canterbury  in  the  vaults  beneath  the  monastic 
necessarium  and  in  the  remains  of  the  great  dormitory. 

In  spite  of  the  impression  of  immense  strength  given 
by  the  massive  piers  and  walls  of  a Norman  church, 
there  is  an  element  of  instability  in  their  construction 
owing  to  the  fact  that  their  cores  are  formed  of  rubble, 
which,  if  not  carefully  grouted  in,  is  apt  to  shift  its 
position.  When  this  occurs  the  ashlar  casing,  owing 
to  the  inequality  of  the  pressure,  becomes  cracked, 
and  the  stability  of  the  building  is  impaired.  There 
was  probably  some  defect  of  this  kind  at  Can- 
terbury, which  may  well  have  been  due  to  the  haste 
with  which  the  church  was  built.  Christ  Church, 
which  was  finished  in  seven  years,  was  in  a ruinous 
condition  in  less  than  three  hundred,  and  had  to  be 
rebuilt,  while  St.  Stephen’s,  erected  about  the  same 
time  but  in  a much  more  leisurely  manner,  stands 
firm  after  the  lapse  of  eight  centuries. 

The  ground  plan  of  Lanfranc’s  nave  and  transepts 
was  conterminous  with  that  of  the  present  church. 
This  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  neither  the  central 
tower  nor  the  two  western  ones  were  removed  when 
the  nave  was  rebuilt  towards  the  end  of  the  fourteenth 
century.  Willis  was  of  opinion  that  the  plinth  of  the 
Norman  nave  still  existed,  but  a careful  examination 
of  the  stones  fails  to  confirm  this.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  professor’s  conjecture  that  the  Norman  piers 
ot  the  great  central  tower  were  merely  cased  over 
by  the  fourteenth-century  masons  was  verified  in  a 
26 


Passage  from  the  Cloister  to  the  Infirmary 


LANFRANC’S  NORMAN  CHURCH 

remarkable  manner  quite  recently,  when,  after  holes 
had  been  cut  in  the  ashlar  casing  of  the  western  piers 
for  the  purpose  of  forcing  liquid  cement  into  their 
cores,  one  of  the  original  Norman  shafts  with  its 
cushion  capital  was  brought  to  light.  The  nave  piers, 
like  those  of  the  almost  contemporary  abbey-church 
of  St.  Alban,  in  Hertfordshire,  were  doubtless  oblong 
masses  of  masonry  with  small  shafts  set  at  their  angles. 
At  Caen  the  shafts  on  the  side  facing  the  central  alley 
of  the  nave  are  alternately  single  and  triple,  and  run 
up  to  the  roof,  which  was  not  vaulted,  but  constructed 
of  timber  and  painted  on  its  inner  side  ; a similar 
arrangement  was  probably  adopted  at  Canterbury. 
The  triforium  (if  the  fashion  set  by  St.  Stephen’s  was 
followed)  was  a repetition  on  a smaller  scale  of  the 
rounded  arches  of  the  main  arcade  beneath,  either 
open  to  the  plain  barrel-vaulted  roof  above  or  provided 
with  a floor  of  timber.1 

Willis,  on  the  analogy  of  St.  Stephen’s,  has  laid 
down  the  plan  of  Christ  Church  with  three  western 
entrances  only,2  but  it  is  more  probable  that  the 
Suthdore  of  the  Saxon  church  was  represented  in  its 
Norman  successor,  and  that  the  south-west  doorway 
has  been  from  that  day  to  this  the  usual  place  for 
entry. 

Another  feature  of  the  Saxon  church  which  was 
allowed  to  influence  the  new  design  was  the  lofty 
confessio  or  crypt  beneath  the  eastern  portion  of  the 
church  ; it  is  one  that  does  not  occur  in  St.  Stephen’s 
at  Caen,  but  has  always  reappeared  in  Christ  Church 
during  successive  rebuildings. 

The  eastward  extension  of  Lanfranc’s  choir  was  a 
matter  of  some  uncertainty  until  excavations  in  the 
crypt,  about  seventeen  years  ago,  cleared  up  the  doubt 
which  had  previously  existed.  Gervase,  who  was  an 
inmate  of  the  monastery  at  the  time  of  the  great  fire 
which  occurred  in  1174,  has  left  us  a description  of 

1 Scott’s  “ Essay,”  ut  supra.  2 Willis,  ut  supra,  p.  38. 


29 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

the  western  portion  of  the  church,  but  says  nothing  of 
the  choir,  which,  indeed,  was  pulled  down  seventy 
years  or  more  before  his  time.  Willis,  from  the  analogy 
of  other  churches  in  Normandy  and  from  the  fact  that 
Lanfranc’s  choir  was  so  soon  enlarged,  conjectured 
that  it  extended  no  further  than  two  bays  eastward 
of  the  tower  arch,  and  this  was  confirmed  by  the 
discovery  of  the  apsidal  foundations  of  the  three 
eastern  chapels  when  the  crypt  was  restored  in  recent 
years.  The  exact  position  of  the  wall  of  the  apse  of  the 
northern  chapel  has  been  marked  by  a curved  line 
set  in  the  new  concrete  floor,  and  although  the 
apses  of  the  other  chapels  are  not  indicated  in  a 
similar  way,  their  discovery  is  vouched  for  by  the 
senior  verger,  who  was  present  at  die  time  the  excava- 
tions were  made.  A choir  of  only  two  bays  could 
scarcely  have  accommodated  die  one  hundred  and 
fifty  monks  of  Lanfranc’s  new  foundauon,  nor  was  it 
intended  to  do  so,  for  the  brethren  doubdess  continued 
to  occupy  die  eastern  bays  of  die  nave.  Indeed  (as 
has  been  pointed  out  by  die  late  George  Scott),  the 
typical  division  of  a church  prior  to  the  twelfth 
century  was  not  nave  and  choir,  or  nave,  choir,  and 
sanctuary,  but  nave  and  sanctuary.  The  ritual  choir, 
then,  of  Lanfranc’s  church  probably  occupied  the 
three  eastern  bays  of  the  nave  and  was  separated  by  a 
screen  at  its  western  end  from  the  church  of  the  lay- 
folk,  who  would  worship  at  the  Altar  of  the  Holy 
Cross  beneath  the  great  Rood.  That  the  monks  were 
still  placed  in  the  nave  receives  further  confirmation 
from  Gcrvase’s  statement  that  the  organ  jorrmrly 
(apparently  not  in  his  day)  stood  in  the  gallery  of  the 
southern  transept,  a position  which  would  scarcely 
have  been  chosen  unless  the  singers  were  placed  in  the 
nave. 

From  Gervase’s  account  it  would  seem  that  the 
altar  of  the  monks  (known  as  the  matutinal  altar) 
was  set  upon  a platform  beneath  the  central  tower 
30 


PLAN  OF  LANFRANC’S  CHURCH  (1070-1077) 

From  George  G.  Scott’s  Essay  on  “ English  Church  Architecture” 


LANFRANC’S  NORMAN  CHURCH 

space,  whence  a flight  of  steps  led  up  through 
the  eastern  tower  arch  to  the  presbytery,  beyond 
which  and  approached  by  more  steps  was  the  high 
altar  with  the  patriarchal  seat  set  within  the  chord  of 
the  central  apse. 

As  to  the  external  appearance  of  the  church,  Ger- 
vase  tells  us  that  the  central  tower  had  a spire  {'pinna) 
which  was  surmounted  by  the  gilded  figure  of  a 
seraph.  It  would  seem,  however,  that  the  winged 
figure  which  seemed  to  hover  over  the  church  was 
really  intended  to  typify  the  protecting  presence  of 
the  Saviour,  in  whose  Name  the  church  was  hallowed, 
for  John  of  Salisbury  calls  it  the  “ Angel  Steeple,” 
the  symbol  of  the  “ Angel  of  the  Great  Counsel,” 
under  whose  protecting  wings  the  metropolitical 
church  reposed  : 

Far  seen  with  gilded  seraph  crowned, 

This  shrine  is  Britain’s  holiest  ground. 

Yet  if,  for  love  of  all  things  fair, 

Strangers  shall  to  this  spot  repair, 

“ What  be  these  walls,”  they  ask,  “ and  why 
Yon  seraph  pointing  to  the  sky  ? ” 

This  mother-shrine  was  first  to  sing 
The  praises  of  the  Heavenly  King  : 

By  her  the  sacred  lore  was  taught ; 

By  her  a nation’s  creed  was  wrought. 

To  her  our  thankful  hearts  we  raise 
In  honour,  duty,  love,  and  praise. 

And  if  the  Seraph’s  name  ye  crave, 

Ask  who  the  Heavenly  Counsel  gave  : 

Poised  on  his  outspread  wings  he  spies 
The  precinct  of  his  Paradise  : 

At  watch  and  ward  lest  foeman  dare 
To  claim  a right  of  conquest  there. 

Haste  to  the  Church  of  Christ  and  enter  in  : 

So  shall  ye  find  a shriving  for  your  sin.1 

The  two  western  towers,  which  Gervase  describes 
as  “ lofty,”  were  also  crowned  with  little  gilded  spires 

1 For  this  English  version  of  the  Latin  verses  which  John  of 
Salisbury  prefixed  to  his  Policraticus  we  are  indebted  to  the  Rev. 
Leonard  Evans,  second  master  of  the  King’s  School,  Canterbury. 


31 


CANTERBURT CATHEDRAL 

( pinnacula ).  The  northern  one,  which  was  still  stand- 
ing within  the  memory  of  some  of  the  present  in- 
habitants of  the  city,  is  well  figured  in  Woolnoth’s 
“ Illustrations  of  Canterbury  Cathedral.”  Built  in 
five  stories,  the  four  upper  ones  were  decorated  with 
arcade  work,  and  it  would  seem  that  the  topmost 
srory  was  either  added  or  subjected  to  alteration  at  a 
later  date,  for  here  the  arcading  over  the  windows 
assumes  a pointed  form. 

No  record  of  the  dedication  of  Lanfranc’s  church  is 
extant,  but  the  date  may  perhaps  be  fixed  by  a note 
in  the  “ Black  Book  ” of  the  Archdeacon  of  Canter- 
bury, which  places  Dcdicatio  Ecclesit  against  the 
fourth  day  of  October — a day  which  does  not  tally 
with  subsequent  dedications  recorded  by  Gervase  and 
others.  If,  then,  Eadmer’s  statement  that  the  work 
was  begun  in  1070  and  occupied  seven  years  be 
accepted,  the  dedication  ceremony  took  place  October 
4,  1077.  With  the  exception  of  the  Confessor’s  Abbey 
at  Westminster,  Lanfranc’s  cathedral  church  was  the 
first  Norman  church  erected  in  this  country.  In  size 
it  vastly  excelled  its  venerable  predecessor,  and  thus 
typified  the  forward  movement  and  extended  outlook  j 
which  the  ecclesiastical  policy  of  the  new  Piimate  | 
was  about  to  inaugurate. 

The  primacy  of  Canterbury,  in  Saxon  times  a 
shadowy  thing,  became  under  Lanfranc  a substantial 
reality.  It  was  in  vain  that  Thomas  of  York  protested, 
since  Lanfranc  possessed  the  ear  of  the  Conqueror 
and  was  able  to  point  out  to  him  that  the  supremacy 
of  Canterbury  would  tend  towards  the  consolidation 
of  the  kingdom.  The  matter  was  definitely  settled 
• at  a council  held  at  Winchester  and  afterwards  ad- 
journed to  Windsor.  The  original  document  bearing 
witness  to  the  accord  still  remains  amongst  the 
Chapter  archives,  and  is  an  instrument  of  the  highest 
importance  and  of  peculiar  interest,  since  all  the 
signatures  of  the  attesting  parties  appear  to  be  in 

32 


THE  NORTH-WEST  TOWER,  AND 
RUINS  OF  THE  PALACE  IN  1816 


' t. 


■4. 


i- 

i Jr 

- - &- 
p w 

E H 

c£  JT 

Si  t 
»=4  I- 

fr 


III 

VV\ 


I 


% 

t 


^“i 


O 


s. 


J 


U 

U 


M .0  = 

- >*  'w> 


J o o 

«.  </.  s. 

„<  5 £ 


■»  — 


cr. 


X 


y: 


at 


— 3 

D 


* 


L A N F R A N CS  NORMAN  CHURCH 

autograph.1  Even  the  bold  cross  of  the  King  and 
the  more  delicate  one  of  the  Queen  seem  to  have  been 
traced  by  the  royal  hands,  the  pen  of  Lanfranc  being 
employed  to  verify  them  by  the  words  “ signum  uuilelmi 
regis  ” and  “ signum  Mathildis  regine  ” respectively. 
The  other  witnesses  were  Hubert,  the  papal  legate  ; 
Lanfranc,  archbishop  of  Canterbury  ; Walkelin, 
bishop  of  Winchester  ; Thomas,  archbishop  of  York  ; 
Remigius,  bishop  of  Dorchester  ; Erfastus,  bishop  of 
Thetford ; and  Wulstan,  bishop  of  Worcester. 

It  should  also  be  noticed  that  whereas  the  other 
attesting  bishops  wrote  after  their  names  “ subscripsi 
Thomas  of  York  added  to  his  a reluctant  “ concedo .”  2 

The  accord  of  Winchester  must  also  have  affected 
favourably  the  prestige  of  the  metropolitical  church, 
and  Lanfranc’s  reform  of  the  monastery  doubtless 
tended  in  the  same  direction.  It  is  true  that  Lan- 
franc’s “ Constitutions  ” were  addressed  to  the  whole 
of  the  Benedictine  Order  in  England,  but  their  applica- 
tion to  the  monks  of  Christ  Church  was  primary,  and 
the  need  of  reform  was  here  especially  urgent. 

The  monks  of  Canterbury  [says  William  of  Malmsbury],  save  that 
they  had  some  scruples  about  breaking  their  vow  of  chastity,  were 
accustomed  to  indulge  in  hunting,  hawking,  dicing,  and  deep  potations, 
while  from  the  number  of  servants  maintained  their  household  resembled 
the  establishment  of  some  great  officer  of  state  rather  than  that  of  a 
monastery.3 

To  restore  discipline  without  unduly  offending  the 
susceptibilities  of  the  brethren  was  no  easy  task, 

1 “ There  is  so  much  variety  of  character  in  these  signatures,”  (says 
Dr.  Sheppard,  “ Hist.  MSS.  Commission,”  Appendix  to  5th  Report, 
p.452),  “that  it  is  impossible  to  resist  the  conclusion  that  each  of 
them  is  the  work  of  the  person  whose  name  it  expresses  except  that  of 
Erfastus,  whose  tremulous  hand  was  only  able  to  delineate  his  cross.  An 
examination  of  the  bold  square,  upstanding  autograph  of  the  Bishop  of 
Worcester  tempts  one  to  believe  that  as  his  certainly  expresses  the 
transparent  and  firm  character  of  the  writer,  so  the  other  witnesses  may 
have  furnished  in  their  signatures  some  materials  for  estimating  their 
moral  qualities.  2 The  document  is  in  the  Chapter  archives. 

3 Gesta  Pontificum , R.S.,  p.  70. 

c 33 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

especially  to  a foreigner,  but  so  tactfully  did  the  Arch- 
bishop introduce  his  reforms  that  in  a short  time  a 
life  more  in  accordance  with  the  rule  of  their  founder 
was  cheerfully  embraced.  One  change  made  by  Lan- 
franc  in  the  domestic  economy  of  the  monastery, 
however,  was  perhaps  not  altogether  an  improvement. 
In  Saxon  times  the  archbishops  had  shared  the  common 
life  of  the  convent.  This  was  now  altered  by  the 
erection  of  a separate  residence  for  the  archbishop 
outside  the  monastic  precinct,  and  by  the  allotment 
of  certain  estates  of  the  church  for  his  special  main- 
tenance. 

The  withdrawal  of  the  archbishop  from  the  cloister 
was  perhaps  in  part  responsible  for  those  mutual 
jealousies  and  suspicions  which  later  on  so  seriously 
disturbed  the  harmony  of  the  relationship  between 
the  monks  and  their  titular  head,  and  which,  in  the 
second  half  of  the  twelfth  century,  culminated  in 
open  hostility. 

Thus  as  time  went  on  the  Primates  generally  pre- 
ferred their  more  distant  manor-houses  to  a residence 
in  close  proximity  to  the  cantankerous  Chapter  of  their 
own  cathedral  church. 

The  history  of  the  archiepiscopal  palace  does  not 
come  within  the  scope  of  the  present  work,  so  a very 
brief  outline  must  here  suffice.  Added  to  and  altered 
by  Stephen  Langton  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  thir- 
teenth century  and  bv  Boniface  about  fifty  years 
later,  the  palace  was  burnt  in  the  time  of  Cranmcr  and  ^ 
rebuilt  bv  Parker  in  1564-65.  It  then  became  the 
occasional  residence  of  that  prelate  and  his  successors 
until  the  days  of  Laud  ; but  during  the  Common-  , 
wealth  the  palace  was  scheduled  for  destruction  by  the 
commissioners  of  the  lands  of  cathedral  establishments, 
and  the  greater  part  of  it  was  actually  pulled  down. 
Such  portions  as  were  left  standing  were  let  out  in 
tenements,  and  soon  after  the  restoration  of  the 
monarchy  a part  was  leased  to  those  members  of  the 
34 


LAN  FRANCS  NORMAN  CHURCH 

French  Protestant  Church  who  conformed  to  the 
liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England.  At  length,  in  the 
closing  years  of  the  last  century,  Archbishop  Temple 
determined  to  end  the  strange  anomaly  that  com- 
pelled archbishops  of  Canterbury  to  depend  upon 
the  hospitality  of  the  Deanery  whenever  they  visited 
their  cathedral  city ; and  a commodious  house  was 
erected  on  the  site  of  the  old  palace,  some  fragments 
of  which  were  incorporated  in  the  new  work.  But  it 
is  doubtful  whether  the  new  house  can  claim  to  contain 
any  portions  which  date  back  to  the  days  of  Lanfranc. 

Lanfranc  died  on  May  24,  1089.  Gervase  says  that 
(in  Ernulf’s  church)  his  tomb  was  in  the  Trinity 
Chapel,  but,  as  far  as  we  know,  this  chapel  did  not 
exist  at  the  time  of  the  Archbishop’s  burial.  After  the 
fire  of  1174  his  body  was  temporarily  removed  to  the 
nave,  and  was  afterwards  deposited  near  the  altar  of 
St.  Martin  in  the  north-western  transept,  where  his 
name,  rudely  scratched  upon  the  wall  of  the  apse, 
may  still  be  seen. 

The  inventories  of  church  goods  mention  several 
valuable  vestments  which  were  presented  to  the 
church  by  Lanfranc,  amongst  which  were  three  magni- 
ficent black  chasubles  enriched  with  gems  and  pearls 
and  embroidered  with  cloth  of  gold,  and  four  splendid 
copes,  the  first  two  of  which  were  black  in  colour 
and  adorned  with  gems  and  gold,  each  having  round 
its  edge  fifty-one  silver-gilt  bells.  It  is  remarkable 
that  these  vestments  remained  in  use  for  nearly  three 
hundred  years,  and  when  at  length  they  were  worn 
out  it  was  deemed  worth  while  to  reduce  them  to 
ashes  in  order  to  recover  the  precious  metal  with 
which  they  were  so  heavily  embroidered.1 

1 “ De  una  cappa  vererabilis  Lanfranci  cremata  et  de  diversis  jocalibus 
fusisvendidis,  cxvi^vj8,  viijd”  (“  Treasurer’s  Accounts,”  1371-72).  And 
“ De  duabus  casulis  venerabilis  Lanfranci  crematis  cum  aliis  diversis 
jocalibus  fusis  vendidis,  cxxxviij11,  xijs”  (“Treasurer’s  Accounts,” 
1:372— 73).  See  also  Messrs.  Legg  and  Hope’s  “ Inventories  of  Christ 
Church,”  p.  13. 


35 


CHAPTER  III 
ANSELM’S  CHOIR 


After  Lanfranc’s  death  (May  24,  1089)  the  See  of 
Canterbury  remained  vacant  for  more  than  four  years. 
Meanwhile  the  rapacious  Red  King  not  only  diverted 
the  church’s  revenue  to  his  own  uses,  but  for  the 

\ purpose  of  exacting  the  utter- 
> most  farthing  from  the  un- 
fortunate monks  sent  his 
emissaries  to  Christ  Church, 
where  they  infested  the  very 
cloisters.  Their  conduct  was 
indeed  so  insufferable  that 
many  of  the  brethren  aban- 
doned their  vows  altogether, 
while  others  sought  an 
asylum  in  religious  houses 
elsewhere. 

that  he  was  stricken  with! 
mortal  sickness,  the  King  consented  to  make  a nomina- 
tion, and  the  crosier  was  thrust  into  the  reluctant 
hands  of  Anselm,  Abbot  of  Bee,  who  happened  to  be 
in  England  at  the  time,  and  to  whom  popular  feeling 
seemed  to  turn  instinctively. 

Anselm  received  consecration  in  Canterbury  Cathe- 
dral on  December  4,  1093,  at  the  hands  of  the  Arch- 
bishop of  York,  assisted  by  no  less  than  nine  bishops  of 
the  southern  province.  The  chief  consecrator  was  that 
same  Thomas  of  York  who  twenty-one  years  earlier 
had  been  constrained,  sorely  against  his  will,  to  acknow- 
ledge the  primacy  of  Canterbury.  That  he  was  still 

36 


Capital  in  the  Crypt 

At  length,  believing 


ANSELM'S  CHOIR 

highly  sensitive  to  anything  which  might  seem  deroga- 
tory to  the  privileges  of  the  northern  See  is  shown 
by  the  following  incident  : When  Walkelin,  Bishop 
of  Winchester — who  was  deputed  to  read  the  Act  of 
election — described  the  church  of  Canterbury  as  the 
Metropolitical  Church  of  all  Britain,  Thomas  at  once 
stopped  the  proceedings.  Such  a phrase,  he  pro- 
tested, implied  that  the  church  of  York  was  not  a 
metropolitical  church.  The  objection  was  allowed, 
and  after  the  term  “ Primate  of  all  Britain  ” had  been 
substituted  for  “ metropolitan  ” the  ceremony  was 
suffered  to  proceed,  and  Anselm  was  duly  con- 
secrated as  Primate  of  all  Britain.1  But  although 
consecrated  and  enthroned  (the  enthronement  had 
preceded  the  consecration  by  several  months),  the 
Archbishop  had  not  yet  received  from  Rome  the 
; pallium , which,  if  it  did  not  actually  confer  spiritual 
jurisdiction,  was  regarded  as  the  indispensable  badge 
of  its  possession.  This  symbolical  vestment — the  form 
of  which  is  familiar  from  the  representation  of  it 
upon  the  arms  of  the  See  of  Canterbury,  viz.  a circlet 
of  cloth  made  to  rest  upon  the  shoulders  with  pendants 
before  and  behind — was  bestowed  by  the  Pope  upon 
metropolitans  as  a mark  of  his  peculiar  favour.  Anselm 
was  not  the  man  to  value  lightly  such  a gift,  especially 
as  the  vestment  derived  its  sanctity  from  having  been 
placed  in  contact  with  the  relics  of  St.  Peter,  and  in  its 
absence  he  felt  himself  incapacitated  from  exercising 
his  archiepiscopal  functions.  The  difficulty  was  that 
at  this  juncture  two  claimants  to  the  chair  of  St.  Peter 
were  in  the  field,  and  while  Anselm  had  already  pro- 
fessed obedience  to  one  of  them  the  King  favoured 
the  pretensions  of  the  other.  Without  entering  into 
the  protracted  controversy  which  ensued,  it  will  be 
sufficient  to  state  here  that  the  matter  was  at  length 
settled  by  a compromise,  whereby  the  King  consented 
to  recognise  the  Pope  to  whom  the  Archbishop  had 
1 Eadmer,  Hist.  Nov.,  R.S.,  p.  42. 


37 


CANTERBURY*  CATHEDRAL 

made  his  profession,  and  to  permit  the  pall  to  be  laid 
upon  the  high  altar  of  the  cathedral  church,  whence 
Anselm  consented  to  take  it. 

Accordingly,  the  Cardinal  Legate,  Walter,  Bishop 
of  Albano,  arrived  in  Canterbury  on  May  27,  1095, 
bringing  with  him  the  sacred  vestment  enclosed  in  a 
silver  case.  At  the  Burgate  he  was  met  by  the  Arch- 
bishop and  the  monks  of  Christ  Church  and  St.  Augus- 
tine’s, vested  in  albes  and  copes,  but  with  bare — that  is, 
sandalless — feet,  and  was  escorted  by  the  brethren  to  the 
cathedral  church.  As  the  procession  entered  the  great 
western  doors  the  choir  commenced  to  sing  an  anthem, 
during  which  a station  was  made  before  the  great  Rood 
in  the  nave.  The  procession  then  moved  up  the  steps 
leading  to  the  presbytery,  and  the  pall  was  taken  from 
its  case  and  placed  upon  the  altar.  The  Archbishop 
then  blessed  the  people  and,  taking  up  the  pall,  held 
it  folded  in  his  hands  during  the  singing  of  the  Tt 
Deurn , the  brethren  meanwhile  coming  forward  one 
by  one  and  devoutly  kissing  it.  When  this  had  been 
done  by  all,  from  the  Prior  to  the  youngest  novice, 
the  Archbishop  retired  to  the  chapter  house  to  put 
on  his  mass  vestments,  the  pall  being  placed  upon 
his  shoulders  by  the  legate,  who  accompanied  the  act  I 
with  the  following  words  : “ Receive  this  pall,  a sign  1 

of  the  high  priesthood  of  thy  Lord  God,  by  j 

which,  defended  and  fortified  on  every  side,  thou 
mayest  overcome  every  onslaught  of  the  enemy 
and,  strengthened  by  this  divine  armour,  rid  thyself  * 

from  all  the  snares  of  the  evil  one.  The  Lord  God  . 

being  thine  aid,  who  liveth  for  ever  and  ever. 
Amen.”  1 

The  ceremony  was  witnessed  by  an  enormous 
congregation  of  both  clergy  and  laity.*  And  possibly 

1 Eadmcr,  Hist.  Nov.t  R.S.,  p.  72,  and  a memorandum  amongst  the 
Chapter  archives. 

3 “ Cum  numerosa  clericorum,  nccne  immensa  laicorum  diversi  sexus  * 
et  aetatis  multitudine.”  Eadmcr,  ut  supra. 

38 


ANSELM'S  CHOIR 

it  was  on  this  occasion  that  the  inadequacy  of  the 
accommodation  afforded  by  Lanfranc’s  church  for  the 
due  celebration  of  a stately  ceremonial  first  became 
apparent.  Anselm  himself  may  have  noticed  some 
unseemly  crowding  amongst  the  distinguished  occu- 
pants of  the  exiguous  area  which  constituted  the 
presbytery,  and  may  have  recognised  the  necessity  of 
an  eastward  extension. 

However  this  may  have  been,  it  is  certain  the 
enlargement  of  the  eastern  limb  of  the  church  was  not 
long  delayed.  Although  the  Archbishop  was  unable 
to  take  any  personal  share  in  the  work,  since  the 
greater  part  of  his  primacy  was  spent  in  exile,  it  was 
commenced  under  his  auspices,  and  chiefly  by  his 
efforts  the  necessary  funds  were  raised.  Thus  the 
moiety  of  offerings  made  at  the  high  altar  to  which, 
by  an  ordinance  of  Lanfranc,  the  Archbishop  was 
entitled  was  handed  over  by  Anselm  to  the  Prior 
and  Chapter  for  the  new  choir.  To  the  same  purpose 
he  devoted  the  rents  and  profits  of  the  rich  manor  of 
Peckham.  This,  however,  had  rather  the  nature  of  a 
mortgage  than  a gift,  since  the  transaction  was  entered 
into  in  return  for  a loan  of  ^ioo  which  the  Archbishop 
had  borrowed  in  order  to  meet  the  King’s  demand 
for  a loan  to  finance  Duke  Robert’s  expedition  to  the 
Holy  Land*  The  bargain,  at  any  rate,  proved  a very 
good  one  for  the  monks,  who  set  aside  the  profits  for 
the  new  work.  Further,  Eadmer  informs  us  that 
Anselm  (doubtless  conscious  of  his  limitations  as  a 
man  of  business)  wisely  refrained  from  all  interference 
in  the  management  of  the  conventual  estates,  a 
course  which,  according  to  the  same  authority, 
greatly  strengthened  the  financial  position  of  the 
monastery. 

The  convent  was  fortunate  at  this  juncture  in 
possessing  in  their  Prior  a man  who  could  supply  the 
practical  qualities  which  the  Archbishop  lacked. 
Ernulf,  who  succeeded  to  the  priorate  in  1096,  had 

39 


CANTERBURY*  CATHEDRAL 

entered  the  religious  life  as  a monk  of  St.  Lucien  in 
Beauvais ; later  he  had  become  a pupil  of  Lanfranc 
at  Bee,  and  when  the  latter  was  elected  to  the  primacy 
of  the  English  Church  he  was  invited  by  his  master  to 
accompany  him  to  England,  where  he  became  an 
inmate  of  the  priory  of  Christ  Church,  Canterbury. 
It  is  not  unlikely  that  Ernulf’s  ability  as  an  architect 
was  known  to  Lanfranc,  whose  invitation  may  have 
been  prompted  by  the  desire  to  employ  him  on  his 
new  cathedral  church.  If  so,  his  previous  experience 
would  at  once  suggest  his  name  in  connection  with 
the  superintendence  of  the  new  choir.  That  Ernulf 
was  the  actual  designer  and  not  merely  the  supervisor 
of  the  work  is  abundantly  clear  from  a comparison 
of  Canterbury  work  with  that  of  other  buildings 
attributed  to  him  elsewhere.  He  became  Abbot  of 
Peterborough  in  1107  and  Bishop  of  Rochester  seven 
years  later,  and  at  both  places  certain  well-defined 
characteristics  are  found  which  point  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  buildings  were  the  product  of  one  and  the 
same  mind. 

The  new  choir  was  laid  out  by  Ernulf  on  a scale 
calculated  practically  to  double  the  area  of  the  church. 
Instead  of  the  two  bays  which  comprised  the  eastward 
extension  of  Lanfranc’s  church,  the  new  work  was 
carried  forward  five  bays  to  a secondary  or  eastern 
transept,  the  entrances  to  which,  however  (in  this 
the  earliest  instance  of  the  introduction  of  this  feature), 
were  masked  by  the  main  arcade  being  carried  across 
them,  so  that  the  transepts  formed  separate  chapels. 

Beyond  the  eastern  wall  of  the  secondary  transept 
the  main  arcade  extended  for  two  bays  further  in  a 
straight  line  and  then  was  carried  by  six  more  piers 
round  the  ambulatory  of  the  apse.  Radiating  from  the 
outer  wall  of  the  eastern  apse,  Ernulf  built  two  towers 
having  apsidal  terminations  towards  the  east  and 
stair-turrets  at  the  western  ends,  doubtless  a reminis- 
cence of  the  flanking  towrers  of  the  Roman-Saxon 
40 


pH  pp 


UA\  VI 


Fmulf's  Crypt 


ANSELM'S  CHOIR 

church  ; that  on  the  north  was  dedicated  in  honour 
of  St.  Andrew  and  that  on  the  south  of  SS.  Peter 
and  Paul.  At  the  extreme  eastern  end  a rectangular 
chapel  dedicated  to  the  Holy  Trinity  was  erected,  the 
entrance  to  which  was  through  an  arch  in  the  apse. 
This  was  a prodigious  extension,  the  entire  length  from 
the  eastern  tower  piers  being  about  one  hundred  and 
ninety-eight  feet.  At  the  same  time  the  choir  was 
widened  by  setting  back  the  alignment  of  the  central 
alley  on  either  side  four  feet,  so  that  the  arches  were 
now  made  to  spring,  not  from  the  centre  of  the  great 
tower  piers,  but  from  a short  wall  built  against  the 
outer  edges  of  the  said  piers.  In  order  to  preserve 
the  width  of  the  aisles  their  outer  walls  were  set  back 
a corresponding  distance,  with  the  exception  that  a 
short  length  of  Lanfranc’s  work  was  retained  at  the 
western  end  of  the  aisles  in  order  to  preserve  the 
staircases  leading  to  the  chapels  in  the  galleries  of 
the  great  western  transept. 

The  whole  of  the  superstructure  was  raised  upon  a 
lofty  crypt,  which  in  its  western  portion  remains  to-day 
much  as  Ernulf  left  it,  though  in  the  choir  above  little 
of  his  handiwork  remains.  The  crypt  of  Canterbury — 
which  is  remarkable  for  its  vast  size,  the  bold  span  of 
its  vaults,  and  the  grotesque  carvings  of  its  pier 
capitals — must  (with  the  exception  of  the  latter  orna- 
mentation, which  was  added  probably  some  fifty  or 
sixty  years  later)  have  been  finished  by  the  end  of  the 
1 eleventh  century,  if  we  give  credit  to  the  statement 
of  William  of  Malmsbury  that  Ernulf  had  roofed  in 
the  choir  and  adorned  it  with  paintings  before  he  was 
preferred  to  the  Abbacy  of  Peterborough  in  1107.1 
But  the  great  choir  was  by  no  means  complete  even 
at  the  latter  date,  for  much  remained  to  be  done  in 
the  way  of  internal  decoration,  and  another  twenty- 
three  years  elapsed  before  it  was  adjudged  to  be  ready 
for  dedication. 


1 Gesta  Pontificum , R.S.,  p.  234. 


41 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

The  same  year  which  witnessed  Ernulf’s  departure 
from  Canterbury  brought  back  Anselm,  whose  feud 
with  the  King  was  at  length  healed.  But  the  Arch- 
bishop was  now  a dying  man.  For  two  years  he  attended 
the  daily  celebration  of  the  divine  mysteries  in  the 
nave  of  his  cathedral  church,  the  choir  being  still 
unfinished,  and  doubtless  watched  with  interest  the 
progress  of  the  new  work  inaugurated  by  himself 
eleven  or  twelve  years  earlier.  At  length,  on  the 
Tuesday  of  Holy  Week  in  the  year  1109,  he 
was  on  his  death-bed.  Eadmer’s  pathetic  descrip- 
tion of  the  last  hours  of  the  saintly  prelate  is  of 
exquisite  simplicity,  and  is  worth  quoting  here  at 
length  : 

The  brethren  [he  tells  us]  were  already  chanting  matins  in  the  great 
church.  One  of  those  who  watched  our  father  took  the  book  of  the 
Gospels  and  read  aloud  the  history  of  the  Passion  which  was  to  be  read 
that  day  at  Mass.  When  he  came  to  the  Lord’s  words,  “ I appoint  unto 
you  a Kingdom,  as  My  Father  hath  appointed  unto  Me,  that  ye  may 
eat  and  drink  at  My  table,”  he  began  to  breathe  more  slowly,  and  we 
saw  that  he  was  passing ; so  he  was  lifted  from  his  bed  and  laid  upon 
sackcloth  sprinkled  with  ashes.  And  the  whole  family  of  his  children 
being  gathered  round  him,  he  slept  in  peace. 

Thus  passed  away  the  greatest  bishop  of  his  age,  one 
of  the  profoundest  mediaeval  thinkers  and  theologians, 
who  was  also  one  of  the  most  saintly  of  the  long  line  of 
archbishops  of  Canterbury.1 

Anselm’s  body  was  laid  by  the  remains  of  his  friend 
and  master  Lanfranc  before  the  great  Rood  in  the  nave 
until  the  new  choir  was  finished,  when  his  body  was 
translated  to  the  neighbourhood  of  the  altar  of 
SS.  Peter  and  Paul  in  the  tower  on  the  south  side  of 
the  church,  which  has  since  been  called  by  his  name. 
By  men  of  his  own  day  and  by  later  generations  his 
name  became  the  object  of  increasing  veneration,  and 
Dante  in  his  vision  of  Paradise  saw  him  among  the 
spirits  of  light  in  the  sphere  of  the  sun.  Yet,  strange 

1 Eadmer,  R.S.,  ut  supra , p.  417 ; and  Dr.  Spence,  “ The  Church 
of  England,”  vol.  ii.  p.  168. 

42 


Ernulf’s  Cry  ft  ( South  Aisle) 


SEALS  OF  THE  PRIOR  AND 
CONVENT  OF  CHRISTCHURCH 

(1)  The  Earliest  Seal 

I.fgend — Sigillum  : Ecclesie  : Ciiristi 

(2)  The  Second  Seal  (r.  113°) 

Legend — Sigillum  : Ecclie  : Xpi  Caste  arie  . 

1 RIME  SEDIS  BrITANNIE 


ANSELM'S  CHOIR 

to  say,  his  formal  canonisation  by  Rome  was  long 
delayed,  and  by  the  strange  irony  of  fate  was  at  length 
granted  towards  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century  by 
Roderic  Borgia,  the  flagrantly  wicked  Pope  known  as 
Alexander  VI. 

Of  St.  Anselm’s  tomb,  or  shrine,  no  vestige  now 
remains,  but  entries  in  the  sacrist’s  accounts  show  that 
during  the  Middle  Ages  pilgrimages  and  offerings  were 
occasionally  made  at  it.1  And  for  this  reason  it 
doubtless  shared  the  fate  of  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas, 
though  no  record  of  its  destruction  appears  to  be 
extant. 

After  the  departure  of  Prior  Ernulf  for  Peterborough 
the  decoration  of  the  interior  of  the  choir  was  con- 
tinued by  his  successor,  Prior  Conrad,  who  not  only 
covered  its  walls  with  frescoes  and  filled  its  windows 
with  stained  glass,  but  provided  several  notable  orna- 
ments and  vestments  for  the  church  and  its  ministers. 
Of  these  perhaps  the  most  noteworthy  were  a great 
seven-branched  candelabrum  of  brass  and  a very  valuable 
cope  of  cloth  of  gold,  richly  jewelled,  with  a fringe 
round  its  lower  edge  of  no  less  than  one  hundred  and 
forty  little  bells  of  silver-gilt  : both,  by  the  way, 

remarkable  examples  of  the  Judaising  tendencies  of 
the  Western  Church  at  this  period. 

According  to  Matthew  Paris,  some  service  of  dedica- 
tion took  place  in  Canterbury  Cathedral  in  the  year 
1 1 14.  Possibly  the  crypt  may  have  been  consecrated 
at  this  time,  but  Paris  is  the  sole  authority  for  the 
statement,  and  Gervase  says  clearly  that  the  new 
choir  was  not  dedicated  until  May  4,  1130. 

The  ceremony  was  performed  by  Archbishop  William 
Corboil  in  the  presence  of  King  Henry  I.  of  England, 

1 E.g.  in  1425  the  Crown  Prince  of  Portugal  made  an  offering  “ ad 
altare  Anselmi  per  serenissimum  principem  filium  regis  Portugaliae  iijs.,? 
In  a list  of  the  relics  of  the  church  drawn  up  by  Prior  Eastry  in  1315 
the  reliquice  of  St,  Anselm  are  entered  sixth  in  a list  of  the  twelve  greater 
relics. 


45 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

David  King  of  Scotland,  eight  bishops  of  the 
southern  province,  three  of  foreign  sees,  and  a vast 
assemblage  of  clerks  and  lay-folk.1  “ So  famous  a 
dedication,”  says  Gervase,  “ has  never  been  heard 
of  on  earth  since  the  dedication  of  the  temple  of 
Solomon.” 

The  choir  which  had  been  so  long  in  building 
and  at  length  was  dedicated  with  so  much  pomp  was 
to  have  but  a brief  life.  Thirty-four  years  after  the 
dedication  ceremony  it  was  destroyed  bv  fire.  But 
although  little  remains  of  Anselm’s  choir  to-day, 
Gervase,  who  w'as  an  inmate  of  the  priorv  at  the  time 
of  the  disaster,  has  left  us  a particular  description  of 
it,  and  indeed  of  the  whole  church.  From  this  source 
we  learn  that  the  great  Rood  had  now  been  moved 
from  the  position  it  had  occupied  in  Lanfranc’s  time 
near  the  centre  of  the  nave,  and  placed  over  a screen 
between  the  western  piers  of  the  central  tower.  This 
screen,  which  was  placed  upon  the  platform  beneath 
the  tower,  was  approached  from  the  nave  by  an  ascent 
of  several  steps.  In  the  centre  of  its  western  side, 
beneath  the  Rood,  was  die  people’s  altar,  on  either  side 
of  which  was  a doorway.  From  the  platform  a further 
ascent  of  steps  led  up  to  a second  screen  under  the 
eastern  piers  of  the  tower,  through  which  the  choir 
was  entered  by  a central  doorway.  At  the  time  of  its 
erection  this  central  entrance  appears  to  have  been 
without  a door,  since  by  one  of  Archbishop  Win- 
chelsey’s  statutes  (issued  in  1298)  it  was  ordered  that 
for  greater  security  a strong  wooden  doorway  of  good 
design,  ostium  fulchre  et  forte  ligneumy  should  be 
constructed  at  the  western  entrance  of  the  choir, 
which  door  was  to  be  kept  locked  to  prevent  approach 
to  the  upper  part  of  the  church  except  at  stated 
times.* 

The  ritual  choir,  in  the  midst  of  which  hung  a 

1 Chron.  Flor.  If’igorn.,  Eng.  Hist.  Society,  vol.  ii.  p.  91. 

2 The  door  was  guarded  by  an  official  known  as  the  Ostuiriuj  Cbori. 

46 


ANSELM'S  CHOIR 

gilded  corona  carrying  four-and-twenty  wax  lights, 
was  separated  from  the  aisles  by  a low  wall  “ built  of 
marble  slabs,  against  which  were  placed  the  stalls  of 
the  monks,  arranged  in  a double  row  on  either  side 
and  extending  as  far  as  the  western  side  of  the  eastern 
transept,  at  which  line  there  was  an  ascent  of  three 
steps  to  the  presbytery.  From  the  pavement  of  the 
presbytery  a further  rise  of  three  steps  led  up  to  the 
high  altar  dedicated  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  altars  and  shrines 
of  St.  Alphege  and  St.  Dunstan,  placed  respectively 
north  and  south  of  the  high  altar.  Behind  the  high 
altar,  and  resting  upon  the  capitals  of  the  two  pillars 
from  which  the  curve  of  the  apse  commenced  and  upon 
two  wooden  columns  “ gracefully  ornamented  with 
gold  and  silver,”  was  a great  gilded  beam  which  sus- 
tained “ a representation  of  our  Lord  in  Majesty  ” 
and  images  of  St.  Dunstan  and  St.  Alphege,  together 
with  seven  shrines  covered  with  gold  and  silver  and 
filled  with  the  relics  of  divers  saints.  Beneath  this 
beam,  and  between  the  wooden  columns  already 
mentioned,  stood  a gilded  cross  placed  within  a circle 
of  sixty  transparent  crystals. 

A few  paces  eastward  a further  flight  of  steps  led 
up  to  the  patriarchal  throne,  “ formed  out  of  a single 
stone.”  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  throughout  all  the 
alterations  to  which  every  other  piece  of  furniture 
in  the  church  was  subjected  during  the  next  seven 
hundred  years,  the  patriarchal  seat  retained  its  primi- 
tive position  ; and  it  is  a matter  for  profound  regret 
that  a tradition  which  had  been  handed  down  from 
the  times  of  the  Christian  basilica  was  broken  in  the 
first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century,  when  the 
chair  was  removed  to  the  south-east  transept.  It  has 
since  been  placed  in  the  corona. 

The  thirty  years  which  followed  the  dedication  of 
the  choir  were  troublous  times  for  the  monks  of  Christ 
Church  as  well  as  for  the  people  of  England  generally, 

47 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

for  during  the  weak  rule  of  King  Stephen  the  country 
was  practically  in  a state  of  anarchy.  Hence  the  period 
was  unfavourable  for  building  operations,  and  we 
read  of  no  further  additions  to  the  metropolitical 
church  or  to  the  conventual  buildings  for  some  time. 
Archbishop  Theobald,  who  succeeded  to  the  primacy 
on  the  death  of  William  Corboil  in  1139,  was  in  the 
earlier  years  of  his  archiepiscopate  a supporter  of  the 
cause  of  King  Stephen,  whom  he  crowned  together 
with  Queen  Matilda  in  Canterbury  Cathedral  on 
Christmas  Day  in  the  year  1142.  A curious  incident 
in  the  ceremony  is  mentioned  by  Gervase,  which  is 
worth  mentioning  as  evidence  of  the  great  jealousy 
which  existed  between  the  secular  clergy  and  the 
monks.  The  two  parties  seem  to  have  formed  two 
separate  choirs  of  singers  on  this  occasion.  And  Gervase 
relates  that  the  clerks  during  the  singing  of  the  hymn 
Christus  Vincit  quickened  the  time  in  order  that 
they  might  end  before  the  monks,  and  thus  receive 
the  archiepiscopal  blessing  while  the  latter  were  still 
singing.  But,  adds  the  chronicler, 

they  received  a curse  instead  of  a blessing,  for  they  were  excommuni- 
cated by  the  Archbishop.  Nor  would  they  have  received  absolution  if 
the  King  had  not  interceded  for  them  after  Mass  was  over.  Whereas 
the  monks  who  sang  devoutly  and  with  measured  cadence  ( morose ) 
received  God’s  favour,  the  Archbishop’s  blessing,  and  the  King’s  praise.1 

At  a later  period  Theobald — owing  to  the  encroach- 
ments made  by  Henry  of  Blois,  the  King’s  brother  and 
Papal  legate,  on  the  prerogatives  of  the  church  of 
Canterbury — went  over  to  the  Angevin  side,  and  was 
in  consequence  banished  from  the  country.  W hen  at 
length  he  was  able  to  return  to  his  sec  the  Archbishop 
found  the  finances  of  the  priory  at  a low  ebb  and 
discipline  much  relaxed.  He  dealt  with  the  latter 
point  in  a summary  and  successful  fashion,  but  the 
struggle  which  ensued  is  of  importance  as  marking  the 
beginning  of  those  strained  relationships  between 
1 Gervase,  Op.  Hist .,  R.S.,  vol,  i,  p.  527. 


48 


ANSELM’S  CHOIR 

the  monks  and  the  archbishops  which,  with  but  few 
intermissions,  lasted  for  the  next  hundred  and  fifty 
'years. 

The  financial  depression  was  no  doubt  partly  due 
to  the  troublous  times  through  which  the  convent  had 
! recently  passed,  but  it  was  also  caused  by  a too  lavish 
(expenditure  upon  hospitality  and  on  the  monastic 
table.  By  the  year  1152  matters  had  become  so  bad 
that  the  Prior  and  Chapter  offered  to  hand  over  to  the 
Archbishop  the  management  of  their  estates.  He  was 
by  no  means  anxious  to  undertake  the  responsibility, 
but  at  length  consented  to  do  so.  Theobald’s  economic 
reforms,  however,  were  not  received  with  favour. 
The  monks  complained  that  his  retrenchments  were 
on  such  a drastic  scale  that  their  house  was  in  danger 
of  losing  its  world-famed  reputation  for  hospitality, 
and  that  the  fare  served  out  in  the  frater  was  so 
meagre  that  they  were  half-starved.  If  we  may  take 
the  description  given  by  Gerald  de  Barri  (which,  how- 
ever, was  written  some  years  later)  as  a fair  sample  of 
the  monastic  menu , there  was  considerable  room  for 
reform  in  this  direction  before  the  starvation-point 
would  be  reached.  For  the  gossiping  Welshman 
relates  that  when  he  dined  at  Christ  Church  no  less 
than  sixteen  dishes  of  highly  spiced  meats  were  served 
up  at  the  Prior’s  table.  The  occasion,  however,  was 
a special  one,  and  the  fare,  of  course,  cannot  be  taken 
as  a fair  specimen  of  the  monastic  dietary.  Still,  even 
in  th t frater  there  was  room  probably  for  the  exercise 
of  greater  economy;  at  any  rate,  Theobald  seems  to 
have  thought  so,  for  he  paid  no  regard  to  the  com- 
plaints which  assailed  him.  At  length  the  monks 
became  so  incensed  with  what  they  regarded  as  his 
penurious  conduct  that  they  lodged  an  appeal  against 
him  in  the  Roman  Curia.  But  Theobald  was  not  the 
man  to  be  coerced ; he  disregarded  the  appeal 
altogether  and  clapped  the  ringleaders  of  the  move- 
ment into  prison.  Walter  Parvus,  the  Prior,  was 

d 49 


CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL 

removed  from  his  office  and  sent  off  to  Gloucester 
Abbey,  to  be  kept  in  durance  during  the  Archbishop’s 
pleasure.  Theobald  was  thus  left  free  to  carry  out 
his  reforms,  and  so  well  did  he  succeed  that  before 
long  money  was  again  available  for  the  fabric  of  the 
church.  During  the  next  fourteen  years,  which  com- 
prise the  priorate  of  Wibert,  who  succeeded  the 
deposed  Walter  Parvus  in  1151,  many  important 
additions  were  made  both  to  the  church  and  to  the 
monastic  buildings.  To  this  period  belongs  the  orna- 
mentation of  the  shafts  and  capitals  of  the  pillars  in 
the  crypt.  The  carving  is  applied  alternately  to  shaft 
and  capital,  a plain  shaft  being  adorned  with  a carved 
capital  and  vice  versa . In  their  character  and  groupings 
the  grotesque  figures  on  the  capitals  resemble  those  in 
illuminated  manuscripts  of  the  second  half  of  the 
twelfth  century,  and  exhibit  a wonderful  fertility  of 
imagination  on  the  part  of  the  sculptor.  The  mural 
paintings  in  the  apse  of  the  chapel  of  St.  Gabriel 
beneath  the  tower  now  known  as  St.  Anselm’s,  and  the 
very  remarkable  figure  of  St.  Paul  in  the  chapel  above, 
were  executed  probably  a little  later. 

A more  important  addition  to  the  church  was  the 
erection  of  the  Vestiarium , since  called  the  Treasury, 
a finely  proportioned  room  abutting  upon  the  north 
wall  of  the  tower  or  chapel  of  St.  Andrew.  The 
chamber,  which  is  20  ft.  high  and  measures  24  ft.  from 
east  to  west  and  22  ft.  from  north  to  south,  stands 
upon  a substructure  supported  by  round  Norman 
arches  of  late  character  ; from  the  piers  (the  capitals 
of  which  arc  all  carved)  spring  the  ribbed  groynes  of 
the  vaults,  of  which  feature  this  is  the  earliest  instance 
at  Canterbury.  The  external  walls  of  the  chamber 
above  arc  ornamented  with  a belt  of  arcading,  which 
at  first  sight  closely  resembles  that  which  is  carried 
round  the  walls  of  Ernulfs  choir,  but  is  distin- 
guishable from  the  earlier  work  by  the  employment  of 
small  compound  piers  formed  of  a pilaster,  with  a small 
50 


THE  TREASURY 


ANSELM'S  CHOIR 

shaft  and  capital  on  each  side  instead  of  a single  shaft 
as  in  the  Ernulfian  work.1  The  internal  roof  is  a high 
domical  vault  supported  by  diagonal  ribbed  groyning. 
The  chamber  over  the  treasury  was  not  added  until 
about  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  later.  The  grooves 
of  the  original  high-pitched  roof  may  still  be  seen  in 
the  north  wall  of  St.  Andrew’s  Chapel. 

The  primary  purpose  of  the  Vestiarium  was,  of 
course,  to  serve  as  a place  of  safe  depository  for  the 
precious  vestments,  jewels,  and  ornaments,  of  which 
the  church  possessed  an  ever-increasing  store.  Hence 
the  windows  are  protected  with  strong  iron  bars. 
Here,  too,  in  presses  and  aumbries,  were  kept  the 
muniments  of  the  church,  and  in  an  iron-bound  coffer 
(which  still  remains)  a sum  of  ready  money  sufficient 
to  meet  any  sudden  emergency.2 

Wibert’s  additions  to  the  monastic  buildings  were 
so  numerous  that  they  can  only  be  briefly  enumerated 
here,  though  the  remains  of  them  which  are  still 
extant  will  be  described  more  particularly  on  a later 
page.  They  comprised  the  infirmary  chapel  ; the 
inner  gate  of  the  cemetery  ; the  pentise  gate  (now 
incorporated  in  the  house  of  the  Archdeacon  of 
Canterbury)  ; the  Green  Court  gateway ; and  the 
great  North  Hall  contiguous  to  it,  of  which  almost 
the  sole  memorial  is  the  beautiful  and  unique  Norman 
staircase,  which  projected  from  its  eastern  side  and 
fortunately  has  escaped  destruction.  But  chief  amongst 
the  good  works  of  Prior  Wibert  must  be  reckoned  the 
elaborate  hydraulic  system,  whereby  the  convent  was 
supplied  with  pure  water  from  springs  issuing  from 
the  rising  ground  to  the  north-east  of  the  cathedral.3 

1 Willis,  ut  supra,  p.  75. 

2 In  post-Reformation  times  the  chest  in  the  treasury  was  always 
supposed  to  contain  .£300  in  gold.  No  money  is  kept  in  the  treasury 
at  the  present  time. 

3 (1167),  “ obiit  bonae  memoriae  Wibertus  Prior.  Hie  inter  multa 
bona  opera  quae  fecit  isti  ecclesiae  aqueductum  cum  stagnis  et  lavatoriis 
et  piscinis  suis  fieri  fecit,  quam  aquam  fere  milario  ab  urbe  intra  curiam, 

SI 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

The  original  grant  by  Archbishop  Theobald  to 
the  Prior  and  Chapter  of  one  acre  of  land  at  a place 
called  Horsfelde — ubi  fontes  erupuerunt  et  dejluerun- 
usque  ad  stagna — is  still  preserved  amongst  the  cathe- 
dral archives.1  It  is  undated,  but  from  the  names  of 
the  witnesses  it  was  probably  made  about  the  year 
1 160.  But  a far  more  important  piece  of  contemporary 
evidence  of  the  water-supply  inaugurated  by  Prior 
Wibert  is  contained  in  two  Norman  drawings  inserted  in 
a great  Psalter  preserved  in  the  library  of  Trinity  College, 
Cambridge.  The  book,  which  was  apparently  written 
in  the  scriptorium  of  Christ  Church,  Canterbury, 
contains  within  its  covers  two  most  remarkable  draw- 
ings, which  in  the  opinion  of  the  late  Professor  Willis 
were  executed  by  Wibert  or  his  assistants  to  record  his 
system  of  water  distribution  and  drainage.2 

Willis  has  reproduced  these  drawings  in  his  history 
of  the  conventual  buildings,  where  he  gives  also  a 
detailed  account  of  the  whole  system.  From  springs 
situated  in  the  “ North  Holmes  ” the  water  was  first 
conveyed  by  a pipe  to  a circular  conduit-house  and 
then  to  the  city  wall,  passing  in  succession  through 
five  settling-tanks.  In  its  course  the  aqueduct  was 
carried  across  an  orchard  belonging  to  the  Black 
Canons  of  St.  Gregory’s  Priory,  whose  inmates  were 
allowed  the  use  of  a cock  or  branch  from  the  Christ 
Church  main.  In  return  for  this  convenience  the 
Canons  were  wont  every  year,  in  the  month  of  Sep- 
tember, to  send  their  gardener  with  a basket  of  their 
best  apples  as  a present  to  the  monks  of  Christ  Church. 

The  pipe  entered  the  precincts  near  the  north- 
eastern corner  of  the  court — being  carried  across  the 
city  moat  by  a bridge — and  then  proceeded  under- 

ct  sic  per  omnes  ipsius  curiae  officinas,  mirabilitcr  transdujcit.”  Registrum 
sive  martyrologium  Xpi  Cantuariae,  Arundel  MSS.  fol.  41a,  quoted  by 
Somner  in  his  “ Antiquities  of  Canterbury.” 

1 Ch.  Ch.  Cant.  MS.,  W.  224. 

2 “ The  Conventual  Buildings  of  the  Monastery  of  Christ  Church; 
Canterbury,”  op  cit.  p.  175. 

52 


THE  NORMAN  DRAWING  OF  THE 
CATHEDRAL  AND  CONVENTUAL 
BUILDINGS  {c.  1164) 

Showing  Prior  Wibert’s  Waterworks 


ANSELM'S  CHOIR 

ground,  beneath  the  prior’s  gateway  and  the  infirmary- 
kitchen  to  a circular  water-tower  built  against  the 


The  Green-Court  Gateway 

south  alley  of  the  infirmary  cloister.  This  tower,  which 
still  remains,  is  of  two  stories.  The  lower  one  retains 

53 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

its  Norman  arches  and  early  rib-vaulting,  which 
springs  from  a large  hollow  central  pillar  through  which 
the  water  was  conveyed  to  a cistern  or  laver  in  the 
chamber  above,  at  which  the  monks  could  perform 
their  ablutions  on  their  way  from  the  dormitory  to  the 
choir.  The  upper  story  of  this  water-tower  was  rebuilt 
when  Thomas  Chillenden  was  prior  (1391-1411),  and 
from  the  fact  that  the  font  was  placed  here  in  1786 
the  tower  was  for  many  years  known  as  the  “ Baptis- 
tery,’’  but  late  in  the  last  century  the  font  was  removed 
to  the  nave. 

From  the  cistern  in  the  tower  the  water  was  con- 
veyed to  another  laver  in  the  great  cloister,  where  the 
Norman  drawing  shows  an  octofoil  basin  opposite 
the  doorway  of  the  jrater.  When  the  cloister  was 
rebuilt  by  Chillenden  this  octofoil  basin  gave  place 
to  two  oblong  troughs,  occupying  two  bays  of  the 
outer  arcade.  The  position  of  these  lavers  is  at 
once  fixed  by  the  absence  of  any  mullions  in 
the  two  bays  which  once  contained  them.  The  dis- 
tribution of  die  water  from  tins  central  position 
need  not  here  be  described  in  detail ; suffice  it  to 
say  that  the  system  extended  to  all  the  conventual 
buildings  on  the  north  side  of  the  church,  as  well  as 
to  a conduit  on  the  south  side,  for  the  convenience  of 
the  lay-folk,  the  waste  ultimately  finding  an  outlet 
in  a fish-pond  in  the  convent  garden  (now  the 
“ Oaks  ”).  Nor  was  Wibert  content  with  thus  intro- 
ducing an  excellent  supply  of  pure  water  into  the 
monastic  precincts,  for  at  the  same  time  he  constructed 
an  elaborate  system  of  sewers  by  means  of  which  the 
rain-water  from  the  roof  of  the  great  church  was 
utilised  for  flushing  the  main  drain  before  finding  its 
exit  into  the  city  ditch.  The  sanitary  value  of  this 
hydraulic  system  cannot  be  overstated,  since  to  its 
adoption  may  be  ascribed  the  general  good  health 
of  the  monks  of  Christ  Church,  even  during  those 
periods  of  epidemic  sickness  which  during  the  Middle 

54 


ANSELM’S  CHOIR 

Ages  repeatedly  decimated  the  inmates  of  other 
religious  houses. 

In  the  fifteenth  century  certain  alterations  and 
improvements  were  made  in  the  drainage  system,  but 
Wibert’s  work  was  never  superseded,  and  in  part 
exists  even  at  the  present  day.  A change,  however,  in 
the  source  from  which  the  water  was  drawn  was  made 
soon  after  the  dissolution  of  the  monastery,  for  the 
following  reason.  The  old  springs  at  Horsfelde  lay 
within  the  King’s  park,  and  it  was  found  that  the 
water  was  fouled  by  the  deer.  In  order,  therefore,  to 
give  the  Dean  and  Canons  of  his  new  foundation  a pure 
supply,  Henry  VIII,  by  his  charter  of  1546,  granted 
to  Christ  Church  the  watercourse  or  aqueduct  which 
had  previously  supplied  the  dissolved  monastery  of 
St.  Austin.1  From  this  latter  source  the  houses  in  the 
precincts  have  been  supplied  with  water  until  quite 
recent  times,  and  although  most  of  them  are  now 
connected  with  the  city  waterworks,  the  ancient  supply 
is  still  available  in  times  of  emergency. 

Whilst  Prior  Wibert  was  carrying  out  these  practical 
sanitary  reforms,  Archbishop  Theobald  was  engaged 
in  reviving  the  schools  of  general  learning  founded 
more  than  five  centuries  earlier  by  Archbishop  Theo- 
dore. In  the  second  half  of  the  twelfth  century 
Canterbury  again  became  recognised  as  a place  of 
higher  education,  or  studium  generate,  to  which  scholars 
were  attracted  from  all  parts  of  England.  Amongst 
them  was  John  of  Salisbury,  reckoned  the  most  learned 
man  of  his  day,  and  Vacarius,  who  was  invited  to 
England  by  Theobald  to  deliver  lectures  in  Roman 
law.  But  the  most  interesting  figure  amongst  the 
scholars  of  the  archbishop’s  school  is  that  of  Thomas 
1 This  forms  one  of  the  clauses  of  the  Exchange  Charter  of  the  37th 
Henry  VIII.  The  old  watercourse  is  said  to  be  “ now  of  late,  by  occa- 
sion of  the  deer  coming  and  soiling  in  and  near  the  same  water,  so 
corrupted  that  persons  of  the  said  cathedral  cannot  without  danger  of 
sickness  continue  and  keep  hospitality  within  the  site  of  the  said  cathe- 
dral and  metropolitical  church.” 


55 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Becket,  the  young  Archdeacon  of  Canterbury,  whose 
handsome  face,  commanding  stature,  and  winning 
personality  were  already  giving  him  an  influence  over 
all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men  : a 'persona  grata  to 
King  and  monk  alike,  but  as  yet  giving  no  indication 
of  special  sanctity  of  life  or  of  that  unflinching  Church- 
manship  which  he  was  destined  to  vindicate  with  his 
death.  But  for  Becket  and  that  great  tragedy  which 
made  him  the  foremost  saint  in  England  for  nearly 
three  centuries  a special  chapter  must  be  reserved. 

C.  E.  W. 


56 


Transtpt  T vu'er 


CHAPTER  IV 

ST.  THOMAS  OF  CANTERBURY 

“Of  few  characters  in  all  history,”  says  Archdeacon 
Hutton  in  his  “ Life  of  Becket,”  “ is  the  life-story 
better  known.  At  least  ten  contemporary  biographies 
are  extant,  and  it  would  be 
easy  to  increase  that  number 
if  we  counted  the  fragments 
of  original  information  in 
other  writings  of  the  age. 

Besides  this  we  have  an  almost 


Our  use  of  this  copious 
material  must  be  brief  and 
slight,  and  the  reader  may 
fill  in  our  outline  from  the 
pages  of  Archdeacon  Hutton,  Stanley’s  “Memorials,” 
and  Tennyson’s  drama.  The  preceding  chapters  have 
shown  that  Canterbury  Cathedral  had  its  annals  before 
Becket,  as  England  had  its  annals  before  William  the 
Conqueror.  But  in  each  case  the  man  so  turned  the 
stream  of  history  that  he  must  be  reckoned  with  by 
any  one  who  would  trace  and  understand  the  sub- 
sequent course  of  events. 

Thomas  Becket  was  born  in  Cheapside,  London, 
about  the  year  1118,  and  always  described  himself 
as  Thomas  of  London.  His  parents  were  Normans 
who  had  settled  in  that  city  : the  father  a successful 

57 


unique  collection  of  letters 
relating  to  Becket,  written 
by  himself,  his  friends,  and 
his  enemies.” 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

merchant,  and  the  mother  a lady  said  to  have  been 
both  good  and  beautiful,  and  not  without  dreams 
that  her  son  should  in  some  special  way  be  dedicated 
to  the  service  of  God. 

We  have  already  noticed  that  as  a young  man  he  was 
sent  for  training  to  Canterbury,  where  Archbishop 
Theobald  loved  to  gather  round  him  men  of  learning, 
wit,  and  character,  whether  as  scholars  or  as  teachers. 
“ It  was  a school  not  only  of  literature  and  ecclesias- 
tical learning  but  also  of  politics,  where  the  interests 
of  Henry  of  Anjou  and  of  the  Angevin  succession  were 
always  kept  in  mind,  and  where  by  Thomas  himself,  it 
is  said,  the  plan  of  Stephen  to  crown  Eustace,  his  son, 
in  1152  was  foiled  by  the  refusal  of  Theobald.’’ 1 

The  Primate  quickly  discerned  in  his  pupil  both 
power  and  promise,  sent  him  to  study  in  the  famous 
law-schools  of  France  and  Italy,  made  him  Archdeacon 
of  Canterbury,  and  recommended  him  to  the  young 
King  Henry  II  as  one  of  his  secretaries.  Henry,  like 
Theobald,  fell  under  the  spell  of  his  attraction,  for 
there  was  undoubtedly  something  winning  as  well  as 
able  about  Becket,  adopted  him  as  a close  personal 
friend,  and  in  no  long  time  made  him  his  Chancellor, 
an  office  second  only  to  that  of  Justiciar.  Theobald 
died  in  April  1161,  and  on  June  3,  1162,  at  the  King’s 
wish,  but  not  without  hesitation,  misgiving,  and  pre- 
monition of  trouble,*  Becket  was  consecrated  as 
Primate.  It  may  be  said  that  on  that  day  began  the 
rift  which  ended  in  such  dire  tragedy.  For  there  was 
in  the  character  of  the  new  Archbishop  a singular, 
perhaps  a morbid,  strain  of  thoroughness  and  loyalty  ; 
he  was  a born  partisan.  While  he  was  the  “ King’s 
man  ” he  served  the  King  with  all  his  heart ; when  he 
became  “ the  Church’s  man  ” or  “ the  Pope’s  man  ” 
his  duty  to  the  King  took  the  second  place. 

It  would  be  a grave  mistake  to  regard  Becket  as  a 
mere  monkish  pietist,  or  ascetic  person,  though  he  was 
1 Hutton’s  “ Bcckct,”  p.  10.  2 Robertson’s  “ Becket,”  p.  38. 

58 


ST.  THOMAS  OF  CANTERBURY 

capable  of  mortifying  the  flesh  to  almost  any  degree. 
He  never  formally  took  the  cowl,  and  remained  in 
deacon’s  orders  till  his  appointment  to  the  See  of 
Canterbury.  He  loved  sport  and  fine  raiment  and 
splendid  surroundings.  In  the  service  of  the  King 
he  was  not  only  a considerable  statesman  but  a daring, 
relentless,  and  efficient  soldier,  the  hero  of  many  ex- 
ploits in  the  French  wars,  overthrowing  with  his  own 
hand  a knight  renowned  in  arms.  He  is  described  as 
of  great  height  and  bodily  strength,  with  a long  but 
handsome  face  of  the  aquiline  type,  a high,  narrow 
forehead,  and  observant,  penetrating  eyes.  Impetuous, 
headstrong,  when  roused  not  incapable  of  fury  and  of 
the  violent  language  less  uncommon  in  high  places  then 
than  now,  yet  often  able  by  force  of  will  to  attain 
severe  self-restraint ; habitually  courteous  and  of  free 
and  sympathetic  talk  ; inspiring  great  attachments  and 
bitter  hatreds  ; generous  and  obstinate ; a fighter 
rather  than  a diplomatist ; of  a deeply  religious  nature, 
which  smouldered  in  him  as  Chancellor  and  leapt  into 
flame  in  him  as  Archbishop — such  was  the  complex 
personality  of  the  hero  of  our  Canterbury  tale. 

In  a monastic  cathedral  the  bishop  was  the  titular 
abbot,  and  the  monks  contended  that  the  head  of  a 
monastery  should  be  himself  a monk.  There  was  at 
least  one  bishop — Folliot  of  Hereford,  learned,  able, 
austere,  somewhat  bitter,  neither  an  eater  of  meat  nor 
a drinker  of  wine — who  denounced  the  Chancellor  as 
of  worldly  mind,  no  friend  of  the  Church.  It  is 
curious  to  note  that  Folliot,  though  himself  a 
“ regular  ” or  one  of  the  monastic  clergy,  ranged 
himself  against  Becket  throughout  the  ensuing  struggle, 
and  was  to  the  end  one  of  his  most  dangerous  enemies  ; 
while  Becket  from  the  first  foresaw  in  the  very  strict- 
ness of  his  conception  of  the  Church’s  rights  the 
probable  wreck  of  his  friendship  with  the  King.  In 
the  end,  however,  the  choice  was  unanimous  and 
accepted ; the  consecration  took  place  on  the  octave  of 

59 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Whit-Sunday,  June  3,  1162,  and  the  new  Archbishop 
immediately  afterwards  said  his  first  mass  in  the  chapel 
of  the  Blessed  Trinity,  which  henceforth  became  his 
favourite  resort  for  prayer  and  meditation  whenever  he 
was  at  Canterbury.  This  chapel  must,  of  course,  not 
be  confused  with  the  present  Trinity  Chapel,  built 
after  the  fire.  It  was  an  oblong  projection  from  the 
extreme  east  of  the  apse  of  Ernulf’s  choir,  above  the 
spot  where  for  fifty  years  (11 70-1 220)  Becket’s  body 
lay  in  the  crypt.  Though  the  chapel  has  vanished,  the 
famous  Mass  of  1162  has  left  a permanent  memory  in 
the  calendar  of  the  Church ; for  Thomas  himself 
instituted  the  festival  of  the  Holy  Trinity  to  be  observed 
on  the  anniversary,  and  the  octave  of  Whit-Sunday  has 
now  become  Trinity  Sunday  throughout  the  whole 
Western  Church. 

Gilbert  Folliot  became  afterwards,  by  Becket’s 
generous  persuasion,  Bishop  of  London,  but  he  never 
lost  the  spirit  of  his  sardonic  comment  on  the  new 
Primate’s  consecration.  He  said,  more  truly  than  he 
knew,  that  “ the  King  had  worked  a miracle  in  having 
that  day  turned  a layman  into  an  archbishop,  and  a 
soldier  into  a saint.”  Whatever  inconsistencies  may 
be  laid  to  his  charge,  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  sincerity 
of  Becket’s  devotion  to  his  new  office,  of  his  care  for 
the  seemly  performance  of  all  sacred  duties,  of  the 
disinterestedness  of  his  aims,  nor  of  the  purity  and 
severity  of  his  life.  The  first  cause  of  difference  with 
the  King  was  his  resolve  to  resign  the  Chancellorship 
as  a worldly  hindrance  to  higher  work.  If  he  was  not 
a monk  in  name,  he  forthwith  became  a monk  in 
asceticism,  and  after  death  it  was  found  that  he  wore 
the  monastic  habit  beneath  his  episcopal  robes. 

It  is  not  for  us  to  follow,  except  very  briefly,  the 
phases  of  the  growing  quarrel.  On  November  2,  1164, 
he  fled  into  an  exile  which  was  to  be  unbroken  for  six 
years,  when  he  returned  to  his  country  and  his  doom 
on  December  1,  1170.  It  had  been  for  him  a bitter 
60 


ST.  THOMAS  OF  C A NT  E RBU  RT 

time  of  “ eating  bread  and  salt  and  going  up  and  down 
other  people’s  stairs.”  He  never  ceased  to  govern  his 
diocese  and  province  and  to  admonish  his  monastery, 
though  six  out  of  the  eight  and  a half  years  of  his 
primacy  were  spent  in  banishment. 

It  is  perhaps  due  to  the  reader  that  some 
sketch  should  be  given  of  the  causes  which  led  to  the 
estrangement  between  Thomas  of  Canterbury  and 
Henry  II. 

The  Conqueror  had  made  considerable  changes  in 
the  condition  of  the  clergy.  He  established  the  clerical 
courts  as  separate  from  the  ordinary  jurisdiction,  but 
he  maintained  for  himself  a supremacy  over  the  whole 
Church  system  as  complete  as  that  afterwards  asserted 
by  Henry  VIII,  and  refused  to  do  fealty  to  Pope 
Gregory  VII.  In  this  independence  Lanfranc  shared. 
But  in  the  next  generation  the  conflict  began  between 
the  royal  and  the  clerical  authority,  and  culminated 
in  the  dispute  in  which  Becket  fell,  yet  triumphed. 
The  dispute,  in  the  days  of  Anselm,  with  William  Rufus 
and  Henry  I was  on  the  subject  of  the  investitures ; from 
whom  should  the  Archbishop  receive  the  pall,  the  ring, 
the  pastoral  staff  ? It  was  compromised  by  Anselm 
himself  taking  the  pall  which  had  been  laid  upon  the 
altar,  and  by  his  receiving  the  pastoral  staff  from  the 
Pope,  while  he  swore  allegiance  to  the  King.  The 
strife  of  Becket  with  Henry  II  was  on  the  far  greater 
matter  of  the  immunity  of  the  clergy  from  the  King’s 
jurisdiction.  The  extreme  clerical  contention  was 
derived  largely  from  the  False  Decretals,  which,  having 
sprung  up  in  the  ninth  century,  had  been  incorporated 
into  the  great  body  of  the  Canon  Law  called  the 
Decretum  of  Gratian.  Of  this  Becket  had  been  a 
diligent  student  at  Bologna,  and  afterwards  during  his 
banishment  at  Pontigny  it  was  constantly  in  his  hand. 
It  gave  the  most  extreme  power  to  the  Pope  as  against 
kings ; and  since  the  Decretals  were  supposed  to  have 

61 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

the  sanction  of  apostles  and  fathers  of  the  Church, 
Becket,  as  a conscientious  Churchman,  felt  bound  to 
assert  the  rights  which  they  gave.  The  clergy  were  a 
separate  race  ; they  must  not  be  subject  to  the  law  of 
common  men  ; if  they  committed  crimes,  they  must 
be  judged  by  their  own  law  in  their  own  courts  ; and 
any  one  who  was  attached,  even  as  a servant  of  a con- 
vent, to  the  sacred  order  must  be  similarly  entitled  to 
the  “ benefit  of  clergy.’’ 

The  King,  on  the  other  hand,  was  equally  strong  in 
the  conviction  that  he  was  placed  at  the  head  of  the 
nation  to  enforce  order  and  justice,  and  that  he  held 
the  divine  sanction  for  this  ; while  the  Pope’s  authority 
was  an  invention  of  men.  In  arguing  for  the  power 
which  he  claimed  over  Battle  Abbey  against  the  Bishop 
of  Chichester,  who  asserted  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Pope,  he  used  these  remarkable  words  : “ You,  on 
behalf  of  the  Pope’s  authority  which  is  given  him  by 
men,  fancy  that  you  can  strive  with  your  clever  subtle- 
ness against  the  authority  of  the  royal  power  which  has 
been  given  me  by  God.” 

Bccket,  though  he  assented  to  the  Constitutions  of 
Clarendon,  which  determined  what  causes  should  be 
tried  in  the  bishops’  and  what  in  the  King’s  courts,  and 
were  of  the  nature  of  a compromise,  yet  recalled  his 
assent  at  the  Council  of  Northampton,  and  left  the 
country  without  the  King’s  leave. 

The  bishops  and  clergy  of  England  were  divided  in 
their  sympathies.  As  Englishmen  they  held  with  the 
King  ; but  the  separate  interests  of  their  order  were 
strong,  while  the  language  of  the  Decretals  and  the 
power  of  the  Pope  were  against  the  King.  The  people 
were  on  Bcckct’s  side,  since  they  felt  the  harshness  of 
the  King’s  rule,  and  hated  the  cruel  fines  and  brutal 
mutilations  of  the  secular  courts.  This  accounts 
largely  for  the  widespread  and  passionate  devotion  to 
Bccket’s  memory.  He  was  regarded  as  a champion 
against  royal  and  feudal  oppression. 

62 


ST.  THOMAS  OF  CANTERBURY 

Peace  was  made  at  last  at  Fretteville,  in  Normandy. 
The  King  and  Primate  agreed,  so  it  seemed,  to  forgive 
and  forget  ; the  King  held  the  Archbishop’s  bridle 
and  stirrup  as  he  mounted  his  horse,  and  received  his 
blessing,  and  Becket  returned  to  England.  Alas  ! 
another  cause  of  quarrel  had  already  arisen  which 
concerned  the  dignity  of  his  see  and  involved  a matter 
of  discipline. 

The  King  had  resolved  that,  on  account  of  his 
frequent  absences  abroad,  his  eldest  son  Henry  should 
be  made  king,  to  assist  him  during  his  lifetime  ; and 
Becket  being  an  exile,  Roger,  Archbishop  of  York,  was 
called  in  to  officiate  at  the  coronation,  assisted  by 
Folliot,  Bishop  of  London,  and  Jocelyn,  Bishop  of 
Salisbury.  This  was  a violation  of  the  privileges  of 
the  See  of  Canterbury,  the  occupant  of  which  had 
always  officiated. 

The  question  had  been  tried  at  the  coronation  of 
Henry  I,  when  the  Archbishop  of  York’s  claim  had 
been  disallowed  and  his  cross-bearer  turned  out  of  the 
chapel.  Becket  was  deeply  incensed,  and,  perhaps 
characteristically,  took  immediate  and  extreme  measures 
to  redress  the  breach  of  discipline.  He  procured  from 
the  Pope  a suspension  of  the  Archbishop  of  York  and 
an  excommunication  of  the  two  other  bishops,  but 
reserved  to  his  own  discretion  the  moment  at  which 
these  documents  should  be  promulgated. 

The  moment  he  chose  was  unfortunate  for  himself 
and  for  the  peace  of  the  Church.  He  had  the  excom- 
munication with  him  at  his  interview  with  the  King, 
and  obtained  from  him  a general  assent  to  the  exercise 
of  discipline  ; but  nothing  was  known  of  the  matter 
until  Becket’s  landing  in  England  early  in  December. 
Then  he  immediately  sent  the  documents  to  the  three 
prelates,  who  were  at  Dover,  and  the  whole  quarrel 
was  again  ablaze.  They  went  straight  to  the  King  at 
the  castle  of  Bur,  near  Bayeux,  and  their  news  threw 
him  into  one  of  those  paroxysms  of  rage  to  which  he 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

and  others  of  his  race  were  subject,  and  which  were 
not  quite  unreasonably  looked  upon  as  temporary  pos- 
session by  a devil.  He  foamed  at  the  mouth,  and  in 
his  frenzy  cursed  his  court  for  a nest  of  cowards,  not 
one  of  whom  would  rid  him  of  this  low-born  priest. 

On  this,  the  four  knights,  Reginald  Fitzurse,  Hugh  de 
Moreville,  William  de  Tracy,  and  Richard  le  Breton, 
determined  to  enforce  what  they  believed  to  be  the 
King’s  will.  They  moved  so  quickly  that  messengers 
sent  to  stay  their  hands  were  too  late.  They  arrived 
by  different  roads  at  Saltwood  Castle,  which,  though 
belonging  to  the  Archbishop,  had  during  his  exile  been 
given  to  his  mortal  enemy,  Randolph  de  Broc.  This 
man  had  done  everything  to  thwart  and  insult  the 
Archbishop,  and  with  others  had  destroyed  a cargo  of 
wine  on  its  way,  and  had  cut  off  the  tails  of  his  horse 
and  sumpter-mule.  The  knights  held  a conference  in 
the  darkness,  and  early  in  the  morning  of  December  29, 
1170,  rode  with  a few  retainers  along  Stone  Street,  the 
old  Roman  road  from  Lymne  to  Canterbury. 

The  Archbishop,  to  whom  we  must  now  return, 
was  not  unaware  of  his  danger  ; but  he  was  daring, 
and  full  of  faith  in  his  cause.  At  Canterbury 
he  met  with  a more  than  royal  welcome.  He  “ was 
received  in  solemn  procession.  The  church  re- 
sounded with  hymns  and  music,  the  hall  with 
rejoicing,  the  city  cvcryw  here  with  fullness  of  joy.”  1 
He  went  through  the  streets  barefoot  to  the  cathedral. 
In  the  choir  he  gave  every  monk  the  kiss  of  peace.  He 
preached  in  the  chapter-house  on  “ Here  we  have  no 
continuing  city,  but  we  seek  one  to  come.”  As  of  old, 
he  attended  the  religious  offices  and  sat  in  his  court 
as  judge.  Come  what  might,  he  would  nevermore 
be  parted  from  his  church.  At  midnight  on  Christmas 
Eve  he  celebrated  high  mass,  and  again  on  Christmas 
morning,  when  he  preached  on  the  words  rendered 
1 William  Fitzstephcn,  “Materials,”  iii.  119. 


64 


ST.  THOMAS  OF  CANTERBURY 

(perhaps  rightly)  by  the  Vulgate,  “ On  earth  peace  to 
men  of  good  will.”  To  men  of  evil  will,  he  said,  there 
is  no  peace.  He  denounced  and,  in  certain  cases,  ex- 
communicated violators  of  the  Church’s  property, 
rights,  or  discipline,  and  fomenters  of  discord  between 
himself  and  the  King.  He  referred  to  the  insults  and 
injuries  he  had  suffered  at  the  hands  of  de  Broc,  and, 
flinging  the  candle  on  the  pavement  below,  cried  out, 
“ So  let  them  perish  ! May  Christ  curse  all  who  sow 
dissension  between  me  and  the  King  ! ” On  the  day 
of  his  death,  at  the  banquet  in  the  hall  of  his  palace, 
when  it  was  observed  that  he  drank  more  wine  than 
usual,  he  replied,  “ He  that  has  much  blood  to  shed 
must  needs  drink  much  wine.” 

This  was  the  beginning  of  the  end.  He  had  retired 
to  his  chamber  after  dinner,  and  was  sitting  on  his  bed 
talking  to  his  friends,  when  the  knights,  after  an  inter- 
view with  the  abbot  of  St.  Augustine’s,  who  was 
estranged  from  Becket,  were  admitted  to  his  presence, 
and  demanded  the  withdrawal  of  the  excommunication 
of  the  bishops.  After  an  angry  altercation  the  Arch- 
bishop declared,  “ Were  all  the  swords  in  England 
hanging  over  my  head,  you  could  not  terrify  me  from 
my  obedience  to  God  and  my  Lord  the  Pope.” 

The  knights  left  in  furious  anger  to  recover  their 
swords,  which  had  been  laid  down  outside  under  a 
wide-branching  sycamore,  and,  throwing  off  their 
cloaks,  returned  in  their  coats  of  mail,  to  find  the 
entrance  barred.  Guided  by  de  Broc,  they  entered 
the  palace  from  the  back,  and,  ascending  a staircase 
where  some  carpenters  had  been  at  work,  took  their 
axes  to  break  through  any  intervening  doors  ; but  the 
Archbishop  was  already  gone.  Very  unwillingly  he 
had  been  persuaded  to  retire  into  the  cathedral,  and 
in  order  to  avoid  the  armed  men  by  whom  the  place 
was  now  beset,  he  went  by  a private  way  through  or 
under  the  cellarer’s  lodgings  to  the  north-west  door 
of  the  cloister.  It  was  fastened,  but  so  quickly  did 

E 65 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

two  cellarmen,  roused  by  the  tumult,  fly  through  the 
monastic  buildings  into  the  cloister  to  open  it  from  the 
other  side  that  it  was  afterwards  believed  to  have 
opened  miraculously  of  its  own  accord,  like  the  iron 
ga*e  to  St.  Peter  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

He  forbade  the  refastening  of  it,  and  urged,  pushed, 
half  carried  by  his  friends,  breaking  loose  from  them 
and  halting  for  a moment  in  the  chapter-house,  he  at 
last  reached  the  door  from  the  cloister  into  the  transept 
which  has  ever  since  been  called  the  Martyrdom. 
This  door  also  he  refused  to  have  closed  behind  him — 
“ the  church  must  not  be  turned  into  a castle  ” — and 
when  his  orders  were  disobeyed  he  unbarred  it  with 
his  own  hands  to  admit  some  terrified  monks,  driven 
before  the  mailed  knights  advancing  along  the  western 
and  southern  alleys  of  the  cloister  shortly  after  the 
Archbishop  and  his  party  had  traversed  the  northern 
and  eastern  alleys.  The  admission  of  the  flying  monks 
was,  of  course,  the  admission  also  of  the  pursuing 
knights. 

In  spite  of  the  entreaties  of  those  who  desired  to 
save  him,  it  does  not  appear  that  Becket  ever  enter- 
tained the  intention  of  escape  by  hiding  in  the  secret 
places  of  the  cathedral.  His  hesitations  were  rather 
as  to  the  fitting  spot  for  an  archbishop  to  meet  his 
enemies  and  his  death.  He  reproved  the  timidity  of 
the  monks,  and  when  they  rushed  past  him  into  the 
choir,  he  was  mounting  the  steps  which  then  (as  still  in 
the  corresponding  southern  transept)  led  thither  from 
the  south-east  corner  of  the  Martyrdom.  He  was 
perhaps  making  for  the  high  altar,  or  St.  Augustine’s 
chair. 

In  order  to  picture  clearly  to  ourselves  what  followed 
we  must  bear  in  mind  certain  structural  changes.  In 
1 170  the  Lady  Chapel  (which  is  now  called  the  Dean’s 
Chapel)  did  not  exist.  In  place  of  its  entrance-screen 
was  an  apse,  divided  into  two  stories  by  a vaulted  roof 
covering  a part  or  the  whole  of  the  transept  area,  and 
66 


ST.  THOMAS  OF  CANTERBURY 

supported  by  arches  springing  from  a column  which 
bisected  the  southern  or  inner  side  of  this  area.  The 
ground  floor  was  the  chapel  of  St.  Benedict,  the  upper 
floor  that  of  St.  Blaise,  each  with  its  altar  in  the  apse. 

It  was  five  o’clock  on  the  midwinter  evening*  of 
December  29,  1170,  and  the  darkness  was  unrelieved 
except  by  the  dim  light  at  the  altar  of  St.  Benedict, 
when  there  came  the  clash  of  armour  and  a voice, 
“ Where  is  Thomas  Becket,  traitor  to  the  King  ?” 
“ Here  am  I ; no  traitor,  but  Archbishop  and  priest  of 
God.”  The  tall  figure  halted  and  turned  on  the 
stairway,  then  descended  to  confront  the  attack. 
“ Absolve  the  bishops.”  “ I cannot  do  other  than  I 
have  done.”  Fitzurse  planted  an  axe  against  his 
breast,  another  struck  him  on  the  shoulders  with  the 
flat  of  a sword.  “ Fly,  you  are  a dead  man  ! ” “ I am 

ready  to  die  for  God  and  the  Church  ; but  I warn 
you,  I curse  you  in  the  name  of  God  Almighty  if  you 
do  not  let  my  men  escape.” 

In  the  Middle  Ages  the  horror  of  sacrilege  was 
greater  than  that  of  murder,  and  the  first  attempt  was 
to  carry  him  out  of  the  cathedral.  The  Archbishop 
set  his  back  against  the  pillar  supporting  the  chapel  of 
St.  Blaise,  and  when  they  tried  to  hoist  him  on  the 
back  of  Tracy,  caught  up  the  knight  in  his  coat  of 
mail  and  flung  him  on  the  pavement.  Amid  the 
furious  words  on  both  sides  the  Archbishop  hurled  at 
Fitzurse  two  bitter  but  probably  not  undeserved 
epithets  : “ You  detestable  fellow,”  “ You  pander  ” 
or  “ profligate  wretch.”  1 Then  in  a different  key, 
characteristic  of  the  double  temperament  of  the  man, 
as  a sword  swept  the  covering  from  his  head,  “ I com- 
mend my  cause  and  the  cause  of  the  Church  to  St. 
Denys  the  Martyr  of  France,  to  St.  Alphege,  and  to 
the  saints  of  the  Church.” 

With  cries  of  “ Ferez  ! Ferez  ! ” (Strike  ! Strike  !) 
came  the  final  onset.  The  faithful  and  devoted  friend 
1 Fir  abominabilis.  Lenonem  a'p'pellans. 


67 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Grim,  the  Cambridge  clerk,  who  up  to  this  had  stood 
by  his  master  in  his  extremity,  was  severely  wounded 
in  the  arm,  uplifted  to  ward  off  a sword-stroke  of 
Tracy’s  which  drew  blood  from  Becket’s  scalp  and 
shoulder.  Then  quickly  followed  a stunning  blow  on 
the  bleeding  head  with  the  flat  of  the  sword.  The 
Archbishop  bade  poor  Grim  resist  no  longer,  and  fell 
on  his  knees.  “ Lord,  into  Thy  hands  I commend  my 
spirit.”  A third  blow  from  Tracy  laid  him  prostrate 
on  the  floor,  murmuring,  “ For  the  name  of  Jesus  and 
the  defence  of  the  Church  I am  willing  to  die.”  Then, 
as  he  lay  helpless,  came  the  violent  stroke  of  Richard 
le  Breton  which  severed  the  crown  of  the  head  from 
the  skull  and  shivered  the  blade  in  pieces  against  the 
stones.  A degraded  clerk,  Hugh  of  Horsea,  who  had 
hitherto  taken  no  active  part,  strewed  the  exposed 
brain  on  the  pavement  with  the  point  of  his  weapon, 
saying,  “ Let  us  go.  The  traitor  is  dead.  He  will 
rise  no  more.” 

The  dreadful  deed  was  accomplished,  and  the  Arch- 
bishop was  dead.  The  knights  rushed  out  of  the 
cathedral  with  the  war-cry  of  the  English  kings, 
“ Reaux  ! Reaux  ! ” (King’s  men),  plundered  the 
palace  of  both  valuables  and  documents,  and  in  a storm 
of  lightning  and  rain  rode  off  with  their  spoil  on  horses 
stolen  from  the  palace  stables.  They  were  well 
mounted,  for  Becket  loved  a good  horse. 

That  night  the  body  was  carried  up  into  the  choir 
and  laid  before  the  High  Altar.  The  next  day  it  was 
removed  to  the  crypt  beneath  the  Trinity  Chapel 
where  the  living  man  had  loved  to  pray,  and  enclosed 
in  a new  marble  sarcophagus,  so  constructed  or  adapted, 
with  two  oval  windows  or  openings  on  each  side,  that 
devotees  could  touch  or  kiss  the  coffin  within.1 

1 This  tallies  with  Gervase  and  the  representation  of  the  tumba  in  the 
thirteenth-century  windows.  Other  authorities  seem  to  state  that  the 
windows  or  openings  were  in  a protecting  wall  built  round  the  sarco- 
phagus and  gave  access  only  to  its  exterior. 

68 


THE  MARTYRDOM  OF  ST.  THOMAS 

From  a Picture  on  a Panel  at  the  Head  of 
the  Tomb  of  King  Henry  IV 


ST.  THOMAS  OF  CANTERBURY 

Gervase  the  chronicler,  who  was  a monk  of  Canter- 
bury at  that  time,  states  that  he  had  both  seen  and 
touched  the  garments  within.  Many  representations 
of  this  “ tomb  ” ( tumba ) are  to  be  seen  in  the  thirteenth- 
century  “ miracle  ” windows  of  the  existing  Trinity 
Chapel,  and  are  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  more 
gorgeous  “ shrine  ” (feretrum)  to  which  the  Translation 
was  made  fifty  years  later. 

When  the  monks,  watching  and  weeping  by  their 
master’s  body,  discovered  beneath  the  many  and  heavy 
outer  garments — for  it  was  midwinter,  and  the  twelfth 
century  had  neither  coal  nor  appliance  for  heating 
large  buildings — all  the  signs  of  an  extreme  austerity — 
the  monastic  habit,  the  hair-shirt,  the  marks  of  the 
scourge,  the  toleration  of  tormenting  vermin — they 
with  tears  hailed  him  not  only  as  true  monk  but  as 
true  saint.  Three  years  later  this  canonisation  was 
officially  ratified  by  the  Pope,  and  Thomas  Becket 
became  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury ; but  almost 
immediately  began  the  extraordinary  series  of  visions, 
miracles,  and  pilgrimages.  A great  wave  of  emotion 
passed  over  the  land,  transmitting  mystic  influence 
beyond  the  Channel  and  the  North  Sea.  Healing  virtue 
dwelt  in  everything  which  the  saint  had  worn  or  used, 
and  the  least  drop  or  tincture  of  his  blood,  mixed  with 
water  from  the  well  near  his  tomb  and  distributed  in 
small  leaden  vials  or  ampullce,  became  the  most  prized 
and  potent  of  charms.  “ As  the  palm  was  a sign  of 
a pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem,”  says  Dean  Stanley,  “ and  a 
scallop-shell  of  a pilgrimage  to  Compostella,  so  a leaden 
vial  or  bottle  suspended  from  the  neck  became  the 
mark  of  a pilgrimage  to  Canterbury.  . . . The  Canter- 
bury pilgrim  had  his  hat  thick-set  with  ‘ a hundred 
ampulles  ’ or  with  leaden  brooches  representing  the 
mitred  head  of  the  saint,  with  the  inscription  Caput 
Thorns . Many  of  these  are  said  to  have  been  found 
in  the  beds  of  the  Stour  and  the  Thames,  dropped  as 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

the  vast  concourse  departed  from  Canterbury  or 
reached  London.” 

For  a year  the  desecrated  church  lay  silent  and 
desolate  ; the  pictures  and  hangings  were  taken  down, 
the  bells  were  not  rung,  the  altar  was  veiled,  there  was 
no  music,  the  services  were  held  in  the  chapter-house. 
On  December  21,  1171,  the  church  was  “ reconciled  ” 
by  the  sprinkling  of  holy  water  by  order  of  Pope 
Alexander  III,  who  ruled  that,  “ as  was  customary  at 
St.  Peter’s,  Rome,  the  sacrament  of  dedication  should 
not  be  repeated.”  1 

w It  is  not  difficult  to  identify  the  spot  where  Becket 
fell.  Dean  Stanley  thought  it  precisely  marked  by  the 
square  piece  of  stone  let  into  the  pavement  in  place 
of  a portion  said  to  have  been  taken  out  and  sent  to 
Rome.2  In  any  case,  the  early  narratives  point  to  a 
spot  “ in  front  of  the  corner  wall  of  the  chapel,” 
i.e.  the  wall-space  to  which  is  now  attached  the 
monument  of  Archdeacon  Chapman.  Beneath  the 
easternmost  of  the  arches  springing  from  the  pillar 
which  upheld  the  chapel  of  St.  Blaise,  the  Archbishop 
fell  “ towards  the  north,”  so  that  his  head  lay  towards 
the  altar  of  St.  Benedict  in  the  apse. 

Here,  “ in  front  of  the  corner  wall,”  probably  when 
the  church  wras  “ reconciled  ” in  1171,  was  erected  the 
simple  but  famous  altar  of  the  Martyrdom  or  of  the 
Sword’s  Point  (ad  Punctum  Ensis ),  of  which  a rude 
representation  in  stone  is  still  to  be  seen  over  the  south- 
west porch.  It  was  on  a platform  of  two  wooden  steps ; 
above  it  was  a canopied  image  of  the  martyr,  with 
three  tapers  burning  in  a candelabrum  at  its  feet ; upon 
or  over  the  altar  was  the  Cusfts  Gladii  or  point  of 
lc  Breton’s  shattered  sword,  in  a case  with  costly 

1 F.pist.  St.  Thom.  Cantuar .,  lib.  v.  Ep.  xcv.,  Lupus,  p.  882. 

3 Mention  is  made  by  the  late  Canon  G.  C.  Pearson,  in  a letter  to 
the  Kentish  Gazette  of  August  15,  1885,  of  a small  piece  of  stone,  in  the 
Sacristy  at  Siena,  pierced  by  a hole  through  which  is  drawn  a slip  of 
parchment  inscribed  in  tweltth-century  characters : “ De  lapide  super 
quern  sanguis  bcati  Thomac  Cantuariensis  effusus  est.” 

70 


ST.  THOMAS  OF  CANTERBURY 

coverings,  which  were  withdrawn  for  the  gaze  of 
wondering  worshippers.  A fragment  of  the  martyr’s 
brain  under  a piece  of  rock-crystal  surmounted  the 
case  ; his  gold  ring  set  with  sapphires  was  also  shown, 
and,  a century  later,  was  added  a similar  ring  of  St. 
Edmund  the  Archbishop.  Both  these  rings  were  “ of 
great  and  wonderful  virtue  for  relieving  the  eyes  of 
sick  persons.”  For  a better  view  of  this  altar,  Gervase 
tells  us,  the  pillar  against  which  Becket  set  his  back 
in  the  struggle,  and  with  it  the  arches  and  the  chapel 
of  St.  Blaise  which  they  supported,  were  taken  down  ; 
the  steps  also,  which  he  was  ascending  towards  the 
choir,  were  removed  to  make  a more  seemly  space. 
The  western  stairway  from  the  transept  was  (and  is) 
protected  by  a low  wall,  which,  as  pilgrims  multiplied, 
was  extended  to  the  north,  making  a passage  or  lobby 
by  which  monks  and  officials  could  pass  from  the 
cloister  into  the  nave  without  mixing  with  the  crowd 
in  the  Martyrdom.  There  was  indeed  a door  in  this 
wall  known  as  the  Red  Door  (le  red  dur ),  but  it  was 
usually  locked  and  the  key  in  safe  keeping.  On  either 
leaf  of  this  double  door  was  one  of  the  following  lines, 
still  partly  legible  in  Somner’s  day  and  quoted  by  him 

Est  sacer  intra  locus  venerabilis  atque  beatus 

Praesul  ubi  sanctus  Thomas  est  martyrizatus. 

The  wall  appears  to  have  been  rebuilt  in  1381,  but 
becoming  unsafe,  owing  to  the  digging  of  a grave, 
was  finally  removed  in  1734.  The  altar  of  St.  Benedict 
and  the  apse  in  which  it  stood  remained  till  c . 1460, 
when  the  Lady  Chapel  was  erected  together  with  its 
entrance-screen  by  the  first  Prior  Goldstone,  and 
involved  their  removal.  So  much  reconstruction  of 
the  transept  has  taken  place  that  only  the  outer  walls 
belong  to.  Lanfranc’s  work,  and  therefore  to  the  very 
fabric  in  which  the  murder  was  done.  There  is  even 
a story  that  Prior  Benedict,  when  he  became  Abbot 
of  Peterborough,  took  with  him  “ the  stones  on  which 

73 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

the  blood  of  the  martyr  was  sprinkled.,,  But  except- 
ing for  the  removal  of  the  eastern  stairway  and  of  the 
pillar  supporting  St.  Blaise’s  Chapel,  the  ground  plan 
is  unaltered. 

The  most  notable  and  impressive  of  all  Canterbury 
pilgrimages  was  that  of  the  King  himself,  whose 
penance  resounded  through  Europe,  and  has  taken  its 
place  in  history  as  one  of  the  deepest  recorded  humilia- 
tions of  great  princes.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
the  sincerity  of  Henry’s  grief  and  remorse.  For  five 
weeks  after  he  heard  the  news  he  shut  himself  off  from 
both  sport  and  public  affairs,  lamenting  continually, 

“ Alas  ! alas  ! that  it  ever  happened.”  His  very 
liability  to  paroxysms  of  rage  shows  that  he  was  capable 
of  being  deeply  moved.  Henry  saw  at  once  the  danger 
that  the  Pope  might  excommunicate  him  and  lay  an 
interdict  on  his  kingdom.  The  frightful  calamities 
following  an  interdict  were  fully  exemplified  later  in 
the  reign  of  his  son  John.  To  avoid  these  he  wrote 
to  the  Pope  disowning  complicity  in  the  murder,  and 
at  last  after  repeated  solicitation  received  absolution 
from  the  Papal  Legate  at  Avranche.  The  inscribed 
stone  on  which  he  knelt  to  receive  it  is  the  last  vestige 
left  of  a great  cathedral  and  gives  the  date  as  May  21, 
1172.  During  the  next  two  years,  however,  dangers 
of  another  kind  grew  darker  in  England.  His  penitence  . 
was  not  believed  in  ; there  were  insurrections  in  York- 
shire, Norfolk,  and  the  midland  counties ; the  Scots 
had  crossed  the  border  ; his  sons  were  in  rebellion, 
and  Prince  Henry  actually  meditated  an  invasion  from 
Flanders.  The  King  took  a great  resolve,  landed  at 
Southampton  as  a penitent  pilgrim,  and  rode  straight 
to  Canterbury.  At  St.  Dunstan’s  Church  he  stripped 
off  his  ordinary  dress,  and  with  a cloak  thrown  over 
a woollen  shirt  he  walked  barefoot  to  the  cathedral. 
He  knelt  in  the  porch,  went  to  the  Martyrdom,  and 
again  kneeling  kissed  the  sacred  stone  where  the  Arch- 

74 


KING  HENRY  II.  RECEIVING  HIS 
DISCIPLINE  AT  THE  HANDS 
OF  THE  MONKS 

From  Stained  Glass  in  the  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford 
Reproduced  from  Carter's  Specimens  of  Ancient  Architecture  and  Glass 


ST.  THOMAS  OF  CANTERBURY 

fishop  had  fallen,  laid  aside  his  cloak  in  the  crypt,  and, 
cneeling  yet  again,  placed  his  head  in  one  of  the  aper- 
tures of  the  tomb.  There  he  received  five  strokes 
with  a rod  from  each  bishop  and  abbot  present,  and 
three  strokes  from  each  of  the  eighty  monks.  He 
spent  the  whole  night  fasting  in  the  crypt,  and  on  the 
day  following  rode  off  fully  absolved  and  carrying  with 
him  the  pilgrim’s  usual  phial  of  water  mixed  with  the 
martyr’s  blood.  Exhaustion  of  body  and  mortification 
of  spirit  threw  him  into  a fever,  but  within  a week 
William  the  Lion  of  Scotland  was  taken  prisoner  at 
Richmond  in  Yorkshire,  the  Flanders  fleet  was  driven 
back,  and  the  pacified  saint  seemed  to  have  lightened 
the  horizon  for  him  on  every  side. 

Henry’s  penance  was  on  July  12,  1174.  On  Septem- 
ber 5 came  the  great  fire  as  related  in  the  next  chapter, 
followed  by  the  building  of  the  existing  choir,  Trinity 
Chapel,  and  corona.  This  is  important  to  our  present 
purpose  chiefly  as  leading  up  to  the  next  great  phase 
in  the  history  of  Becket’s  relics,  their  translation  from 
the  tomb  in  the  crypt  to  the  shrine  in  the  retro-choir. 
Before  that  event  many  pilgrims  had  come  and  gone, 
some  of  them  royal  and  famous — or  infamous  ; among 
them  Lewis  VII  of  France,  Richard  Cceur  de  Lion,  John, 
and  William  the  Lion  of  Scotland,  who,  by  his  defeat,  was 
so  impressed  with  the  saint’s  power  that  he  built  in  his 
honour  the  abbey  of  Aberbrothock.  But  the  martyr’s 
bones  did  not  attain  their  highest  glory  till  1220,  fifty 
years  after  his  death,  the  jubilee,  as  it  were,  of  his 
entrance  into  Paradise.  The  day  was  July  7,  and  took 
its  place  in  the  Church’s  calendar  as  the  “ Feast  of  the 
Translation  of  St.  Thomas.”  Archbishop  Stephen 
Langton  made  the  occasion  so  magnificent,  and  the 
crowds  entertained  by  him  were  so  vast,  that  the  debts 
incurred  were  a burden  to  his  next  four  successors  in 
the  see,  although  the  offerings  of  the  pilgrims  were 
equivalent  to  nearly  £30,000  of  our  money.  At  the 
Martyrdom  or  Altar  of  the  Sword’s  Point  was  taken 

75 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

£93  os.  2d.,  at  the  tomb  in  the  crypt  £279  9s.,  at  the 
shrine  £702  4s.  ; in  all  ^1074  13s.  2d.,  at  a time  when 
money  was  worth  nearly  thirty  times  its  present  value. 

The  jubilee  of  the  Translation  was  held  every  fifty 
years  from  1220  to  1520,  and  came  to  be  known  as  the 
Great  Pardon,  from  the  Popey  accordance  of  plenary 
indulgence  to  all  pilgrims  ; but  the  offerings  of  1220 
were  never  equalled.  In  1420,  the  time  of  Henry  V 
and  Archbishop  Chicheley,  it  is  said  that  the  Great 
Pardon  assembled  100,000  pilgrims  ; but  the  offerings 
were  only  £370 — at  the  shrine  £3 6°,  at  the  corona 
^150,  at  the  “ Sword’s  Point  ” £37,  at  the  tomb  in  the 
crypt  £ 23 . Assuming  a decline  in  value  during  the 
two  centuries  to  about  twenty  times  that  of  our  money, 
this  would  work  out  at  £11,480.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  the  Great  Pardon  of  1520  ever  took  place. 
The  Pope,  hard  pressed  by  the  outlay  on  the  building 
of  St.  Peter’s  at  Rome,  refused  the  grant  of  plenary 
indulgence  unless  half  the  offerings  were  made  over  to 
him  for  that  purpose.  Dr.  Grig,  proctor  at  the  court 
of  Rome  for  the  Prior  and  Chapter,  gives  an  instructive 
account  of  the  negotiations.  After  many  questions  by 
his  Holiness  (Leo  X),  the  proctor  had  affirmed  that 
since  the  death  and  passion  of  St.  Peter  there  never  had 
been  a man  who  had  done  more  for  the  liberties  of  the 
Church  than  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury.  He  [Dr.  Grig] 
recommends  that  a gold  cup  be  sent  to  his  Holiness  at  oncey 
and  that  the  old  men  of  Canterbury  be  examined  by  a 
notary  and  their  evidence  sent  to  Rome.  He  augurs 
well  from  the  fact  that  he  is  in  high  favour  with  the 
Pope’s  sister,  but  has  finally  to  admit  that  after  inter- 
viewing the  Pope  every  second  day  for  ten  days  he  can 
make  no  better  terms  than  the  surrender  of  half  the 
oblations  to  the  building  fund  of  St.  Peter’s. 

The  great  event  of  1220,  in  honour  of  which  all 
financial  considerations  were  disregarded,  was,  of  course, 
the  Translation  itself.  “ A long  procession,  which 
included  twenty-four  bishops  and  nearly  all  the  abbots 
76 


T.  THOMAS  OF  CANTERBURY 

England,  headed  by  the  young  King  Henry  III, 
ered  the  crypt.  The  [iron]  chest  containing  the 
lains  of  the  saint  was  placed  on  the  shoulders  of 
:hbishop  Langton,  the  Archbishop  of  Rheims, 
bert  de  Burgh,  Grand  Justiciar  of  England,  and 
idulph,  the  Papal  Legate,”  and  borne  along  aisle 
l stairway  to  the  gilded  and  pillared  ark  in  the  chapel 
ich  had  been  built  specially  for  its  reception,  and 
ere  for  three  centuries  afterwards  it  was  enshrined, 
t the  least  interested  and  interesting  members  of 
t brilliant  assembly  were  the  two  “ incomparable 
ftsmen  ” to  whose  genius  were  due  the  design  and 
: workmanship  of  the  shrine,  and  who  prepared 
1 set  in  order  the  pageant  of  the  Translation, 
eir  names  are  preserved  to  us  by  Matthew  Paris 1 — 
liter  of  Colchester,  sacrist  of  St.  Albans,  and  Elias 
Dereham,  canon  of  Salisbury.  The  latter  was 
abtless  the  Elias  of  Dereham  who  is  mentioned  in 
charter  five  years  later  (1225)  as  prior  of  St. 
egory’s,  Canterbury. 

Dnly  one  contemporary  representation  of,  the  shrine 
mown  to  be  extant  ; it  is  in  the  highest^  group  of 
dallions  in  the  central  of  the  three  thirteenth- 
Ltury  windows  on  the  north  side  of  the  chapel,  and 
t was  within  sight  from  the  shrine  itself  can  scarcely 
re  been  other  than  a faithful,  though  perhaps  a 
Lventionalised,  representation.  A reproduction  of 
vill  be  found  in  Stanley’s  “ Memorials  ” (Note  I). 
Jecket  is  here  shown  issuing  from  his  shrine  in  full 
rtificals  to  go  to  the  altar  as  if  to  celebrate  Mass. 
,e  monk  to  whom  the  vision  appears  is  lying  in  the 
eground  on  a couch,”  and  is  doubtless  intended  for 
nedict,  a contemporary  of  the  martyrdom  who 
ites  the  vision  as  having  been  seen  by  him.  Below 
the  words  Prodire  jeretro — as  we  should  say, 
ssuing  from  the  shrine.” 

\mongst  the  Cottonian  MSS.  in  the  British  Museum 
1 Hist.  Angl R.S.,  ii.  p.  242. 


77 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

there  is  a drawing  of  later  date  which  cannot  easily  be 
reconciled  with  the  representation  in  the  window. 
Stanley  reproduces  this  also,  and  endeavours  to  explain 
it  as  showing  the  stone  base  surmounted  by  the  wooden 
case  or  covering  which  usually  protected  the  shrine. 
The  base  shows,  not  pillars,  but  arched  apertures  in 
the  masonry ; and  the  gilded  metal  finials  which 
belonged  to  the  inner  ark  are  shown  on  the  top  of  the 
wooden  case. 

The  shrine  stood  lengthways  eastward  and  [westward 
in  the  centre  of  the  lofty  chapel,  and  cannot  be  better 
described  than  in  Stanley’s  words  : 

“ Above  its  eastern  extremity  was  fixed  in  the  roof 
a gilded  crescent,  still  remaining.  It  has  been  con- 
jectured with  some  reason  that  it  may  have  been 
brought  by  some  crusading  pilgrim  from  the  dome  of 
an  Oriental  mosque,  and  that  round  it  a group  of 
Turkish  flags  and  horse-tails  hung  from  the  roof  over 
the  shrine  beneath — like  the  banners  of  St.  George’s 
Chapel,  Windsor.  At  its  western  extremity,  separating 
it  from  the  Patriarchal  Chair,  which  stood  where  the 
Communion  Table  is  now  placed,  extended  the  broad 
pavement  of  mosaic,  with  its  border  of  circular  stones, 
ornamented  with  fantastic  devices,  chiefly  of  the  signs 
of  the  zodiac,  similar  to  that  which  surrounds  the 
contemporary  tombs  of  Edward  the  Confessor  and 
Henry  III  at  Westminster.  Immediately  in  front  of  | 
this  mosaic  was  placed  c the  altar  of  St.  Thomas  ’ at 
the  head  of  the  shrine,  and  before  this  the  pilgrims 
knelt,  where  the  long  furrow  in  the  purple  pavement 
still  marks  the  exact  limit  to  which  they  advanced. 
Before  them  rose  the  shrine,  secure  with  its  strong  iron 
rails,  of  which  the  stains  and  perhaps  the  fixings  can 
be  traced  in  the  broken  pavement  around.  For  those 
who  were  allowed  to  approach  still  closer  there  were 
iron  gates  which  opened.  The  lower  part  of  the 
shrine  was  of  stone,  supported  on  arches ; and  between 
these  arches  the  sick  and  lame  pilgrims  were  allowed 
78 


ST.  THOMAS  OF  CANTERBURY 

to  ensconce  themselves,  rubbing  their  rheumatic  backs 
or  diseased  legs  and  arms  against  the  marble  which 
brought  them  into  the  nearest  contact  with  the 
wonder-working  body  within.  The  shrine  properly 
so  called  rested  on  these  arches,  and  was  at  first 
invisible.  It  was  concealed  by  a wooden  canopy, 
probably  painted  outside  with  sacred  pictures,  sus- 
pended from  the  roof.  At  a given  signal  this  canopy 
was  drawn  up  by  ropes,  and  the  shrine  then  appeared 
blazing  with  gold  and  jewels  ; the  wooden  sides  were 
plated  with  gold  and  damasked  with  gold  wire ; 
cramped  together  on  this  gold  ground  were  innumer- 
able jewels,  pearls,  sapphires,  balassas,  diamonds, 
rubies,  and  emeralds,  and  also,  c in  the  midst  of  the 
gold,5  rings  or  cameos  of  sculptured  agates,  cornelians, 
and  onyx  stones. 

“ As  soon  as  this  magnificent  sight  was  disclosed  every 
one  dropped  on  his  knees,  and  probably  the  tinkling  of 
the  silver  bells  attached  to  the  canopy  would  indicate 
the  moment  to  all  the  hundreds  of  pilgrims  in  what- 
ever part  of  the  cathedral  they  might  be.  Whilst 
the  votaries  knelt  around,  the  shrine-keeper,  or  on 
special  occasions  the  Prior,  came  forward  and  with  a 
white  wand  touched  the  several  jewels,  naming  the 
giver  of  each.”  Erasmus,  who  saw  the  treasures  of 
the  cathedral  in  1513,  calls  this  official  with  a touch 
of  characteristic  mockery  the  ‘ Mystagogus .’  Each  of 
the  holy  places  had  its  own  custodian,  its  own  store 
of  relics,  its  own  narratives  of  miraculous  cure  ; to 
say  nothing  of  what  Erasmus  saw  in  the  sacristy, 
St.  Thomas’  pastoral  staff,  rough  cloak,  and  bloody 
handkerchief,  nor  of  the  vast  store  of  general  relics, 
in  ivory,  gilt,  or  silver  coffers,  in  the  choir.  The  pil- 
grims were  led  from  the  nave,  through  the  dark  passage 
under  the  ascent  to  the  choir,  for  their  homage  at 
the  Altar  of  the  Sword’s  Point ; thence  to  the  tomb 
or  sarcophagus,  holy  still  though  empty,  in  the  crypt  ; 
then  back  into  the  south  transept  and  up  the  stairway 

79 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

into  the  choir  aisle  to  the  Caput  Beati  T homes  (“  Saint 
Thomas’  Hed  ”)  in  the  round  chapel  at  the  extreme 
east  of  the  church.  Here  was  a golden  or  silver-gilt 
bust  or  head  of  the  martyr  which  was  believed  to 
contain  a fragment  of  his  crown  or  scalp.  Whether 
this  was  itself  the  corona  and  gave  its  name  to  the 
chapel,  or  whether  corona  is  an  architectural  term,  is 
not  quite  certain,  and  according  to  our  view  on  that 
point  we  shall  interpret  the  statement  that  in  1314 
Prior  Henrp  of  Eastry  spent  .£115  12s.  4d.  (nearly 
.£3000)  in  adorning  “ the  crown  of  St.  Thomas  ” with 
gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones.  From  “ Saint 
Thomas’  Hed”  the  company  were  led  into  the  chapel 
of  St.  Thomas  (now  called  the  Trinity  Chapel)  to  the 
shrine,  and  returned  down  the  south  choir  aisle,  where 
still  remain  the  marks  of  the  iron  grille  which  divided 
the  streams  of  ascending  and  descending  votaries. 
There  is  also  a worn  step  where  they  may  have  knelt 
to  receive  the  leaden  bottles  or  “ ampullas  ” of  water 
mixed  with  blood. 

The  account  by  Erasmus  in  his  Peregrinatio 
Religionis  ergo  of  his  visit  to  Canterbury  in  1513  is 
interesting  not  only  as  a description  by  a shrewd 
observer  and  accurate  reporter  ; it  is  full  of  quiet 
humour,  as  when  he  sees  in  the  cathedral  porch  the 
statues  of  the  three  armoured  knights,  “ enjoying  the 
same  kind  of  fame  as  Judas,  Pilate,  and  Caiaphas  ” ; it 
is  first-hand  evidence  of  the  immense  value  of  the 
accumulated  treasures — “ one  would  call  Midas  and 
Croesus  beggars  in  view  of  the  power  of  gold  and  silver 
there  to  be  seen  ” ; “ the  most  worthless  thing  there 
[in  the  shrine]  was  the  gold,  every  part  glowed, 
sparkled,  and  flashed  with  rare  and  large  gems.” 
Finally  it  gives  us  the  attitude  of  a learned  and 
tolerant  man,  who  never  separated  from  Rome, 
towards  the  degraded  and  degrading  relic-worship  of 
the  time — “ a parcel  of  ragged  handkerchiefs  with 
marks  upon  them  of  having  been  used  ” ; and  pre- 
80 


ST.  THOMAS  OF  CANTERBURY 

pares  us  for  Cranmer’s  belief  in  1538  that  the  “ blood  ” 
supplied  to  pilgrims  consisted  of  red  ochre.1 

The  last  recorded  pilgrim  to  the  shrine  was  Madame 
de  Montreuil,  on  her  way  to  the  Scottish  Court  on 
August  31,  1538.  Her  visit  is  thus  related  by  William 
Penison,  who  was  in  waiting  on  her  by  order  of  the 
Lord  Privy  Seal  : “ By  ten  of  the  cloc  she,  her  gentil- 
women  and  the  Ambassadour  of  France  went  to  the 
Church,  where  I shewed  her  St.  Thomas’  Shryne  and 
all  other  such  things  worthy  of  sight,  at  which  she  was 
not  a little  marveilled  of  the  great  riches  thereof, 
saing’  to  be  innumerable  ; and  that  if  she  had  not 
seen  it,  all  the  men  in  the  wourlde  would  never 
a made  her  belyve  it.  Thus  ever  looking  and  viewing 
more  than  an  oure,  as  well  the  Shryne  as  Saint  Thomas’ 
Hed,  being  at  both  sett  cousshens  to  knyle,  and  the 
Pryour  openyng  Saint  Thomas’  Hed  saing  to  her  3 
times,  c This  is  Sainct  Thomas’  Hed,’  and  offered  her 
to  kysse  it,  but  she  nother  knyled  nor  would  kysse  it, 
but  still  viewing  the  riches  thereof.  So  she  departed.”2 

The  lady’s  indifference  to  the  Prior’s  permission  to 
kiss  the  “ Hed  ” was  a sign  of  the  time.  For  more  than 
a century  the  decline  of  belief  in  the  virtue  of  the  relics 
had  been  marked  by  a corresponding  decline  in  the 
offerings  of  pilgrims.  When  William  Selling  was 
Prior  in  1473-74  only  was  received  from  the  warden 
of  the  corona,  nothing  from  the  keepers  of  the  shrine 
and  of  the  tomb,  and  nothing  from  the  altars  of  the 
Sword’s  Point  and  of  St.  Mary  in  the  crypt.  In  1467, 
when  John  Oxney  was  Prior,  the  whole  year’s  offerings 
amounted  to  only  23s.  from  the  corona.3  The 
“ miracles  ” had  long  ago  degenerated  from  the  com- 
paratively reasonable  category  of  faith-healing  into 

1 “ I have  in  great  snspecte  that  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury  his 
blodde  in  Christes  Church  in  Canterburie  is  but  a fayned  thing,  and 
made  of  some  redde  okar.’,  “ State  Papers,  Henry  VIII,”  580. 

2 “ State  Papers,  Henry  VIII,”  i.  583. 

3 “ Priors’  Accounts.”  sub  annis. 


F 


8l 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

that  of  mere  credulity  and  superstition — the  recovery 
of  strayed  falcons  and  of  lost  coins  and  rings  ; dead 
bodies  revivified  ; the  starling  taught  an  invocation 
of  St.  Thomas  and  striking  dead  therewith  the  hawk 
which  had  pounced  on  him.  The  mockery  of  Erasmus 
was  the  voice  of  a new  age. 

The  visit  of  Madame  de  Montreuil  was  in  August 
1538.  In  September,  by  authority  of  Henry  VIII,  who 
in  1517  with  the  Emperor  Charles  V had  in  great  state 
paid  his  own  devotions  and  offerings  at  the  shrine, 
came  the  Commission  for  its  total  destruction.  Accord- 
ing to  Stow’s  Annals,  “ These  bones  (by  command  of 
the  Lord  Cromwell)  were  then  and  there  brent.  . . . 
The  spoile  of  which  shrine  in  golde  and  pretious  stones 
filled  two  great  chests  such  as  six  or  seaven  strong  men 
could  doe  no  more  than  convey  one  of  them  out  of 
the  church.”  The  “ French  Regale,”  the  great  jewel 
presented  in  1179  by  Lewis  VII,  had  leapt  miraculously 
from  the  ring  on  his  hand,  according  to  legend,  and 
attached  itself  to  the  shrine.  Now  by  an  agency  less 
miraculous,  but  equally  efficacious,  it  leapt  from  the 
shrine  and  attached  itself  to  the  ring  on  Henry  VIII’s 
portentous  thumb,  and  afterwards  formed  part  of  a 
jewelled  “ collar  ” of  his  daughter  Queen  Mary,  who 
never  attempted  to  undo  her  father’s  ruthless  spoiling 
of  St.  Thomas.  This  is  in  itself  an  evidence  that  his 
bones  were  actually  and  finally  destroyed.  A rude  ] 
stone  sarcophagus  has  of  recent  years  been  found  under 
the  pavement  of  the  crypt,  containing  the  bones  of  a 
tall  man  with  a cleft  skull ; and  it  has  been  argued 
that,  as  in  the  case  of  Dante  at  Ravenna  and  of 
Cuthbert  at  Durham,  the  remains  of  Becket  were 
removed  and  hidden  by  the  monks,  who  substituted 
others  to  undergo  the  sacrilegious  violence  of  the 
King.  Till  this  conjecture  is  supported  by  further 
evidence  we  prefer  to  accept  the  statement  that  the 
saint’s  bones  were  burnt  or  obscurely  buried. 

Among  the  current  but  unattested  stories  of  the 
82 


ST.  THOMAS  OF  CANTERBURY 

time  is  one  that  the  cause  of  Henry  II  versus  Thomas 
Becket  was  formally  pleaded  in  the  law  courts.  A 
pursuivant  solemnly  read  by  the  shrine  a citation 
that  its  inmate  should  appear  to  answer  charges  of 
treason,  contumacy,  and  rebellion ; when  after  thirty 
days  no  voice  or  presence  made  reply,  the  case  was 
argued  at  Westminster  and  sentence  was  pronounced 
against  the  Archbishop.  What  we  know  is  that  by 
Royal  Proclamation  he  was  declared  to  be  neither 
saint  nor  martyr,  his  images  and  pictures  were  ejected 
from  all  churches  and  public  buildings,  his  name  struck 
out  of  the  calendar  and  erased  from  all  office  books  and 
forms  of  prayer.  The  place  in  the  crypt  where 
twelfth-century  pilgrims  had  knelt  at  the  tomb  was 
by  Order  in  Council  annexed  to  one  of  the  canons’ 
houses  as  a cellar  for  wine  and  faggots. 

So  ended  the  strife  of  nearly  four  centuries,  and  so 
died  relic-worship  in  Canterbury  Cathedral. 

This  chapter  would  be  incomplete  without  some 
brief  summary  of  the  import  and  result  of  Becket’s  life 
and  death. 

The  cathedral  fabric  owes  much  of  its  magnificence 
to  its  having  become  one  of  the  most  famous  of 
European  places  of  pilgrimage.  The  great  disaster  of 
1174,  the  burning  of  the  choir  of  Conrad,  was  turned, 
under  the  spell  of  Becket’s  memory,  into  the  occasion 
for  building  the  far  more  splendid  and  spacious  struc- 
ture which  still  remains  the  glory  of  Canterbury. 
The  existing  Trinity  Chapel  was  planned  as  a resting- 
place  for  the  saint’s  relics ; the  lofty  level  of  its  floor 
suggested  the  imposing  ascent  from  the  nave  as  to 
a throne-room,  and  incidentally  made  possible  the 
remarkable  height  and  dignity  of  the  eastern  part  of 
the  crypt.  The  offerings  of  countless  pilgrims  pro- 
vided part  of  the  means,  and  veneration  for  the 
martyr’s  bones  most  of  the  zeal,  which  through 
centuries  of  turmoil  and  through  many  interruptions 

83 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

and  calamities  carried  forward  the  building  of  the 
great  church.  The  custody  of  the  shrine  brought  to 
the  Christ  Church  monks  both  importance  and  wealth, 
and  with  these  brought  also  heavy  liabilities  and 
charges,  such  as  forced  loans  to  the  State,  and  the 
entertainment  of  innumerable  guests  and  pilgrims, 
some  of  whom  were  of  the  highest  rank  and  pro- 
portionately burdensome  and  expensive.  Nor  was  it 
only  the  monastery  and  the  church  that  were  affected 
so  vitally  by  the  power  in  a dead  man’s  bones,  but  also 
the  city  and  the  archbishops  who  took  their  title  from 
it.  Till  the  year  1170  Canterbury  had  been  a small 
and  comparatively  obscure  place.  It  was  the  seat  of 
the  archbishopric,  but  as  the  Primate  came  to  be 
called  away  more  and  more  for  national  purposes — 
the  danger  became  very  obvious  before  the  end  of  the 
twelfth  century — he  would  have  lived  less  and  less 
at  the  metropolitical  city,  which  might  have  remained 
as  unimportant  as  the  little  city  in  Thrace  to  which 
Constantinople  once  bore  a nominal  allegiance  in 
affairs  ecclesiastical.  But  Canterbury  grown  rich  and 
renowned  as  a great  centre  of  European  pilgrimage, 
Canterbury  one  of  the  chief  holy  places  of  Christen- 
dom, could  justly  claim  that  its  Primates  should  no 
longer  spend  their  years  in  foreign  lands,  whether  on 
the  King’s  business  or  the  Pope’s. 

If  Becket,  in  his  death,  left  an  ineffaceable  mark  on 
the  structure  of  his  cathedral,  and  on  the  history  of 
his  monastery,  his  city,  and  his  office,  he  left  likewise  a 
mark  far  more  momentous  and  significant  on  the  life 
of  Christendom  and  on  the  history  of  his  country. 
“ There  is  no  more  reason  to  doubt  that  Becket  caused 
a religious  revival  than  that  Wesley  and  Whitefield 
did.”  1 Only  Becket’s  revival,  unlike  theirs,  was  felt 
in  France,  Italy,  the  Low  Countries,  Denmark,  and 
Norway.  Germany,  bound  up  with  the  cause  of  the 
antipope,  had  little  sympathy  with  the  champion, 
1 Abbott’s  “ St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury,”  ii.  p.  301. 


84 


Site  of  the  Martyrdom  of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury 


S T.  THOMAS  OF  CANTERBURT 

suppliant,  and  ultimately  canonised  saint  of  Pope 
Alexander  III ; and  there  is  no  record  of  pilgrims 
from  Spain.  On  the  other  hand,  among  the  myriads 
who  knelt  at  the  tomb  of  44  the  holy  blissful  martyr  ” 
were  figures  as  strange  as  a Bishop  of  Tarsus  and  the 
Icelandic  chief  who  brought  an  offering  of  walrus- 
teeth.  The  44  miracles,”  which  Dr.  Abbott  passes 
under  review  with  his  usual  acuteness  and  thorough- 
ness, and  many  of  which  are  depicted  in  the  ancient 
glass  of  the  Trinity  Chapel,  are  remarkably  attested  by 
contemporary  evidence,  and  at  least  as  credible  as 
those  of  Lourdes  or  of  the  Christian  Scientists  of  our 
own  day.  Though  now  we  may  reasonably  describe 
them  as  instances  of  44  mind-cure  ” or  faith-healing, 
they  are  none  the  less  proofs  of  an  extraordinary 
impression  left  upon  the  thought  and  feeling  of  the 
time.  44  We  'are  not  atheists,”  says  Archdeacon 
Hutton,1  44  because  we  see  no  reason  to  believe  that 
God  has  specially  distinguished  the  waters  of  Lourdes 
or  the  last  fifty  years  of  our  era.  Nor  do  we  cease  to 
be  historical  students  because  we  deal  with  the 
miracles  of  St.  Thomas  as  illustrations  of  the  deep 
influence  of  his  life  and  death,  his  character  and 
principles.”  44  We  must  admit  at  once,”  says  Dr. 
Abbott,2  44  that  Becket  dying  an  ordinary  death  would 
probably  not  have  cured  a single  spasm  of  rheumatism. 
But  it  by  no  means  follows  that  he  is  so  far  to  be 
separated  from  his  death  that  it  is  to  be  called  an 
accident  instead  of  an  act.  The  two  chroniclers  of 
miracles  agree  in  asserting  that  the  miracles  brought 
with  them  an  uprising  of  moral  and  religious  fervour, 
and  indirectly  prove  it  by  multitudinous  details 
recorded  without  controversial  purpose.”  Though 
Becket  was  a stranger  to  democratic  theories,  and 
probably  to  democratic  sympathies,  he  was  instinc- 
tively accepted  as  the  champion  of  popular  rights 

1 Abbott’s  “ St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury,”  ii.  p.  271. 

2 Ibid.  p.  301. 


*7 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

against  feudal  oppression,  and  this  gave  his  memory- 
power  to  secure  for  nearly  four  hundred  years  what  he 
really  cared  for — the  Church’s  independence  of  the 
State. 

In  the  political  sphere  the  result  of  his  martyrdom 
upon  the  minds  of  Englishmen  was  a reaction  so 
great  as  to  suspend  the  Constitutions  of  Clarendon 
(now  an  integral  part  of  British  law)  and  to  prolong 
the  sway  of  the  ecclesiastical  power  until  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII. 

To  this  day  the  prevalence  of  the  Christian  name 
of  Thomas  is  not  due  to  a special  regard  for  the 
apostle  of  that  name,  but  to  the  devotion  of  the  people 
through  many  generations  to  their  great  saint  and 
martyr,  the  first  man  of  English  birth  after  the 
Norman  Conquest  who  became  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury. 


Capital  of  Martyrdom  Door 


88 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  REBUILDING  OF  THE  CHOIR  AFTER  THE 
GREAT  FIRE  OF  1174  BY  GUILLAUME  DE  SENS 
AND  WILLIAM  THE  ENGLISHMAN 

The  monks  of  Christ  Church  had  scarcely  recovered 
from  the  shock  of  the  terrible  tragedy  which  had  been 
enacted  in  their  midst,  when  they  were  again  pros- 
trated by  an  overwhelming 
disaster.  On  September  5, 

1174 — less  than  two  months 
after  King  Henry  II  had 
made  his  tardy  reparation 
for  Becket’s  murder  by  re- 
ceiving his  “ discipline  ” at 
the  martyr’s  tomb  in  the 
crypt — the  great  choir,  which 
had  been  dedicated  only 
thirty-four  years  previously, 
was  consumed  by  fire.  Capital  m the  Crypt 

The  conflagration  broke  out  between  the  hours  of 
three  and  four  in  the  afternoon,  and  had  its  origin 
in  sparks  carried  by  a high  southerly  wind  from  the 
burning  thatch  of  three  cottages  in  Burgate  Street  to 
the  roof  of  the  choir,  where  they  effected  a lodgment 
in  the  joints  of  the  leaden  roof,  and,  fanned  by  the 
wind,  set  fire  to  the  rafters.  The  danger  was,  how- 
ever, unobserved  until,  through  the  melting  of  the 
leaden  roof,  the  flames  began  to  show  themselves,  and 
a cry  arose  in  the  churchyard,  “ See  ! See  ! The 
church  is  on  fire  ! ” An  attempt  was  made  to  reach 
the  roof,  but  the  fire  had  now  obtained  so  strong  a 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

hold  that  the  flames  and  smoke  speedily  drove  back  the 
willing  helpers,  who  were  then  unable  to  do  anything 
to  avert  the  danger. 

Anselm’s  choir  was  not  groined  in  stone,  and  it  soon 
became  evident  that  the  fall  of  the  wooden  ceiling 
could  not  be  long  delayed.  In  order  therefore  to 
save  some  of  the  fittings  of  the  choir  before  the  roof 
came  down,  the  monks,  assisted  by  the  citizens,  began 
to  tear  down  the  tapestry  hangings  and  to  remove  to 
a place  of  safety  the  reliquary  chests,  service  books, 
vestments,  and  other  ornaments.  This  had  scarcely 
been  effected,  when  the  burning  roof  came  crashing 
down,  and,  gathering  fresh  fuel  from  the  woodwork  of 
the  choir  below,  the  flames  shot  up  to  a height  of  five- 
and-twenty  feet,  “ grievously  injuring  the  walls  and 
columns  of  the  church.”  Fortunately  the  interven- 
tion of  the  great  central  tower  and  the  direction  of 
the  wind  (which  was  probably  more  south-west  than 
south)  saved  the  nave  and  transepts  of  the  church 
from  destruction.  But  the  flames  swept  over  the 
choir  roof  in  a north-easterly  direction  and  ignited 
the  infirmary  buildings.1 

“ In  this  manner,”  says  Gervase,  who  was  an  inmate 
of  the  convent  at  the  time  and  an  eye-witness  of  all 
that  occurred,  “ the  house  of  God,  hitherto  delightful 
as  a paradise  of  pleasures,  was  now  made  a despicable 
heap  of  ashes,  reduced  to  a dreary  wilderness  and  laid 
open  to  all  the  injuries  of  the  weather.”  2 

But  although  the  monks  marvelled  at  this  inscrutable 
dispensation  of  God  which  had  bereft  them  of  a build- 
ing of  which  they  were  so  justly  proud,  they  at  once 
decided  that  the  daily  and  nightly  offices  of  their  order 
must  suffer  no  interruption.  An  altar  was  therefore 

1 Traces  of  the  fire  may  still  be  seen  on  the  piers  of  the  infirmary 
hall,  but  as  it  was  not  necessary  to  rebuild  them  the  damage  here  was 
apparently  less  than  in  the  choir. 

a Gervase,  Tractatus  d*  Combustion* , in  Optra  Historica , R.S.  vol.  i. 
p.  4.  A translation  of  the  whole  tract  is  given  in  Willis’s  “ Archi- 
tectural History  of  Canterbury  Cathedral.” 

90 


REBUILDING  LEE  CHOIR 

erected  in  the  nave,  and  a space  about  it  was  enclosed 
within  a low  wall  where  the  brethren  might  perform 
their  devotions  in  some  sort  of  privacy.  At  the  same 
time  the  relics  of  the  saints  were  removed  from  their 
desecrated  shrines  and  temporarily  reinterred  in  the 
nave.  This  preliminary  work  was  doubtless  hastened  on 
in  view  of  the  approaching  enthronement  of  Becket’s 
successor.  Archbishop  Richard,  like  his  predecessor 
Lanfranc,  found  his  cathedral  church  in  ruins  when 
he  first  saw  it.  Nevertheless  the  ceremony  of  his 
enthronement  was  duly  carried  out  on  October  5,  just 
one  month  after  the  outbreak  of  the  fire. 

It  now  remained  for  the  monks  to  decide  how  they 
would  deal  with  the  eastern  limb  of  the  church. 
Although  roofless,  the  walls  and  piers  were  still  stand- 
ing, and  the  question  arose  as  to  whether  a restoration 
might  not  be  effected  which  would  not  involve  the 
destruction  of  what  was  left. 

The  convent  at  this  juncture  contained  no  second 
Ernulf  to  whose  skill  in  architectural  matters  the 
solution  of  the  problem  might  be  safely  entrusted, 
and  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  call  in  expert  assistance 
from  outside.  Amongst  a number  of  English  and 
French  artificers  who  in  response  to  the  invitation  of 
the  Prior  and  Chapter  came  to  Canterbury  for  the 
purpose  of  making  a survey  of  the  ruins,  and  issuing  a 
report  thereon,  was  one  Guillaume  de  Sens,  whom 
Gervase  describes  as  “ a man  active  and  ready,  and  as 
a workman  most  skilful  both  in  wood  and  stone.” 
Whether  Guillaume  had  had  anything  to  do  with  the 
building  of  the  cathedral  church  of  his  native  city  is 
not  certain,  but  since  that  church  was  finished  in 
1168  it  is  very  probable  that  he  had  been  employed 
in  this  connection,  and  that  the  circumstance  had  much 
to  do  with  his  selection  as  the  most  fitting  candidate 
for  undertaking  the  supervision  of  the  new  work  at 
Canterbury.  However  this  may  have  been,  “ the 
lively  genius  and  good  reputation  ” of  the  Frenchman 

91 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

made  such  a favourable  impression  upon  the  Prior  and 
Chapter  of  Christ  Church  that  they  appointed  him  as 
their  surveyor  and  dismissed  his  rivals.  Guillaume 
began  by  making  a careful  examination  of  the  ruins, 
and  soon  convinced  himself  that  their  condition  was 
such  as  to  necessitate  a practical  rebuilding  of  the 
whole.  But  knowing  the  affection  which  the  monks 
retained  for  Anselm's  choir,  he  prudently  kept  his 
opinion  to  himself  until  the  brethren  had  somewhat 
recovered  from  the  first  shock  of  the  calamity.  He 
then  told  the  monks  distinctly  that  if  they  wished  to 
have  a safe  and  beautiful  house  of  God,  the  damaged 
columns  and  all  that  they  supported  must  be  taken 
down. 

The  monks,  however,  still  hesitated  to  give  per- 
mission for  the  destruction  of  their  much-loved  choir, 
and  Guillaume,  confident  of  the  ultimate  issue,  con- 
tented himself  with  quietly  making  preparations  to 
begin  the  work  whenever  he  should  receive  permission 
to  proceed. 

At  length  a reluctant  consent  was  given,  and  the 
remainder  of  the  year  was  spent  in  clearing  the  ruins 
of  debris  and  in  the  preparation  of  the  necessary  plant 
and  material. 

In  the  following  year — that  is,  in  1175 — Guillaume 
began  the  work  at  the  western  end,  and  before  the 
year  was  out  had  erected  the  first  pair  of  pier  arches 
on  either  side  of  the  choir.  Thenceforward  the  work 
proceeded  eastwards  during  the  next  three  years  until 
the  month  of  September  1178,  when  an  accident 
occurred  which  deprived  the  convent  of  the  services 
of  their  architect.  Guillaume  by  this  date  having 
reached  the  apse,  had  carried  up  its  piers  to  the 
level  of  the  clerestory,  and  was  personally  super- 
intending the  fixing  of  the  “ centres  ” for  turning  the 
great  vault  over  the  eastern  crossing,  when  the  planks 
of  the  scaffolding  upon  which  he  was  standing  gave  way, 
and  he  was  precipitated  to  the  floor  some  fifty  feet 
92 


REBUILDING  THE  CHOIR 

below,  amidst  a shower  of  stones  and  timber.  That 
his  injuries  were  severe  is  by  no  means  surprising  ; 
indeed,  it  is  a marvel  that  he  escaped  with  his  life. 
But  for  a time  the  master  continued  from  his  sick-bed 
to  direct  the  operations,  the  actual  supervision  of  the 
workmen  being  entrusted  to  one  of  the  junior  monks. 
The  latter  arrangement,  however,  did  not  work  well, 
and  Guillaume,  finding  that  his  health  made  little  or 
no  improvement,  was  constrained  to  resign  his  office, 
and  at  the  approach  of  winter  he  left  Canterbury  for 
his  native  land. 

The  work  of  Guillaume  de  Sens  was  French  in  its 
setting  out  and  in  the  leading  lines  of  its  construction  ; 
French,  too,  of  the  Isle  de  France  in  the  details  of  the 
carved  capitals  of  the  choir,  which  the  master  may 
have  worked  himself.1  But  although  the  design  came 
from  France,  it  was  for  the  most  part  carried  out  by 
English  masons,  who  possessed  traditions  of  their  own 
which  found  expression  in  spite  of  the  controlling 
influence  under  which  they  worked. 

It  was  to  one  of  these  English  craftsmen  that  the 
convent  turned  when  bereft  of  the  services  of  the 
Frenchman.  William  the  .Englishman,  as  he  is  called 
by  Gervase  to  distinguish  him  from  his  predecessor,  is 
described  by  the  chronicler  as  “ small  in  body,  but  in 
workmanship  of  many  kinds  acute  and  honest.”  That 
he  had  before  him  the  plans  of  the  Frenchman  is 
practically  certain,  since  much  of  the  work  for  which 
the  Englishman  was  responsible  bears  a closer  resem- 
blance to  that  of  the  choir  of  Sens  than  the  work 
which  we  know  was  carried  out  by  Guillaume  himself. 
But  whenever  he  had  a free  hand  the  Englishman 
gave  free  scope  to  his  originality,  and  introduced 
new  features. 

Thus,  although  the  coupled  columns  with  their 
carved  capitals  and  square  abacuses  of  the  retro-choir 
at  Canterbury  are  clearly  an  imitation  of  those  in  a 
i E.  G.  Prior3  “ Cathedral  Builders,”  chap.  ii. 


93 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

similar  position  in  the  cathedral  church  of  Sens,  those 
of  the  substructure  exhibit  in  their  round  abacuses  an 
entirely  new  feature.  It  is  probable  that  this  was 
due  to  a change  of  plan  as  to  the  level  of  the  floor 
of  the  retro-choir  after  William  the  Englishman  took 
over  the  work.  The  prior  and  chapter  may  have 
expressed  a desire  that  the  new  chapel  of  St.  Thomas, 
which  was  to  be  erected  behind  the  Patriarchal  Seat, 
should  be  placed  at  a somewhat  higher  level  than  was 
at  first  intended.  Hence  William  in  the  construc- 
tion of  the  lofty  crypt  which  supported  the  chapel 
was  untrammelled  by  the  plans  of  his  predecessor, 
and  accordingly  introduced  here  features  that  were 
altogether  new.  That  some  alteration  of  plan  was 
made  seems  certain  from  the  fact  that  the  lower  part 
of  the  shafts  and  bases,  and  in  some  cases  even  the 
capitals,  of  the  ornamental  arcade  lining  the  walls  on 
either  side  of  the  steps  leading  to  the  retro-choir  are 
concealed  by  the  masonry  which  forms  these  steps. 

The  foundations  of  the  crypt  of  St.  Thomas’s  Chapel 
were  laid  by  William  in  the  year  1179.  The  excava- 
tions for  this  purpose  involved  a disturbance  of  the 
monks’  graveyard  at  the  east  end  of  the  church,  but 
the  bones  were  collected  carefully  and  reburied  in  a 
trench  dug  for  their  reception  between  the  chapel  and 
the  infirmary  hall. 

The  outer  walls  of  the  chapel  of  St.  Thomas  were 
built  round  those  of  the  old  Trinity  Chapel  so  as  not 
to  disturb  the  tomb  of  the  martyr,  which,  when  at 
length  the  demolition  of  the  Trinity  Chapel  became  a 
necessity,  was  enclosed  within  a temporary  wooden 
chapel  in  order  that  the  visits  of  pilgrims  to  the  wonder- 
working saint  might  suffer  no  interruption.  How 
lucrative  these  visits  might  be  is  illustrated  by  the  fact 
that  when  in  that  very  year  (1179)  King  Lewis  VII 
(the  first  French  king  who  ever  visited  England)  paid 
his  devotions  to  the  martyr’s  tomb,  he  offered  a cup 
of  gold  and  the  splendid  jewel  known  as  the  Regale  of 

94 


REBUILDING  THE  CHOIR 

France,  and  in  addition  made  to  the  convent  a grant 
in  perpetuity  of  one  hundred  Parisian  muys  of  wine 
per  annum.1 

At  the  beginning  of  the  following  year,  although  the 
eastern  part  of  the  church  was  incomplete,  the  monks 
expressed  a wish  that  the  ritual  choir  should  be  pre- 
pared for  their  reception  by  the  following  Easter.  In 
order  to  make  the  choir  habitable  by  the  appointed 
time,  William  now  erected  a wooden  partition  shutting 
off  the  unfinished  work  at  the  eastern  end  of  the  church, 
and  built  a wall  or  screen  between  the  piers  of  the 
choir  and  presbytery  on  either  side.  He  also  recon- 
structed the  high  altar,  and  replaced  the  altars  of 
SS.  Alphege  and  Dunstan  in  their  former  positions. 
The  translation  of  the  relics  of  the  saints  now  alone 
remained  to  be  effected,  and  Prior  Alan,  knowing  that 
the  ordinary  ceremonial  of  Easter  Eve  was  somewhat 
lengthy,  determined  to  carry  out  the  translation 
privately  on  an  earlier  day.  Accordingly,  on  Maundy 
Thursday  at  dead  of  night,  the  relics  of  the  saints  were 
removed  to  their  new  shrines  in  the  presence  of  the 
Prior  and  obedientiaries  only.  When,  however,  on 
the  morrow  the  news  leaked  out  the  whole  convent 
was  in  an  uproar.  The  monks  protested  that  an 
insult  had  been  offered  to  the  brethren,  and  a most 
unwarrantable  slight  cast  upon  the  venerable  relics. 
They  urged  that  the  Prior  and  Chapter  should  be 
cited  before  the  Archbishop  and  requested  to  resign 
their  offices  forthwith.  It  was  with  difficulty  that 
Archbishop  Richard  managed  to  restore  harmony, 
and  only  after  a humble  apology  had  been  made  by 
the  Prior  for  his  indiscreet  act. 

“ Early  on  the  morning  of  Easter  Eve  ” (April  19, 
1180),  says  Gervase,  “ the  Archbishop  in  cope  and 
mitre,  and  the  monks  in  albes,  according  to  the 
custom  of  the  Church,  went  in  procession  to  witness 
the  making  of  the  new  fire  in  the  cloister.”  When  this 

1 The  Paris  muy  was  equivalent  to  sixteen  gallons. 

G 


97 


CANTERBURT  CATHEDRAL 

had  been  accomplished,  a taper  kindled  at  the  newly 
consecrated  fire  was  placed  on  the  end  of  a long  staff 
( hasta ) and  carried  in  procession  to  the  choir  for  the 
purpose  of  lighting  the  great  Paschal  candle  which 
was  to  continue  burning  until  Ascension  Day. 

“ At  the  door  of  the  church,”  quoting  again  the 
words  of  Gervase,  “ which  opens  to  the  martyrium  of 
St.  Thomas,  the  Archbishop  reverently  received  from 
a monk  the  pyx  with  the  Eucharist,  which  was  usually 
suspended  over  the  great  altar.  This  he  carried  to 
the  altar  of  the  new  choir.  Thus  our  Lord  went  before 
us  into  Galilee — that  is,  in  our  transmigration  to  the 
new  church.  The  remainder  of  the  offices  that  apper- 
tain to  the  day  were  devoutly  celebrated  ; and  then 
the  pontiff,  standing  at  the  altar  vested  in  the  chasuble 
( injula ),  began  the  Te  Deum  laudamus , and,  the  bells 
ringing,  the  monks  took  up  the  song  with  great  joy, 
and  shedding  sweet  tears  they  praised  God  with  one 
voice  for  all  His  benefits.”  1 

The  monks  being  thus  safely  housed  in  their  new 
choir,  William  was  able  to  proceed  with  the  new 
chapel  of  St.  Thomas  and  with  the  round  chapel  or 
corona  beyond  it.  Before  pulling  down  the  old 
Trinity  Chapel  it  was  necessary  to  remove  to  other 
parts  of  the  church  the  bodies  of  those  saints  and 
archbishops  who  had  been  buried  there.  For  SS.  Odo 
and  Wilfrid  temporary  resting-places  were  found  in 
the  shrines  of  SS.  Dunstan  and  Alphege  near  the  High 
Altar;  Lanfranc  was  reinterred  at  the  altar  of  St. 
Martin  in  the  northern  apse  of  the  north-east  transept ; 
and  Theobald  in  the  chapel  of  St.  Mary  in  the  nave. 
Moreover,  the  altar  of  the  Trinity  Chapel,  to  which  a 
special  interest  was  attached  from  the  fact  that  it  was 
here  that  St.  Thomas  had  celebrated  his  first  Mass, 
was  taken  down  and  carefully  reconstructed  in  the 
northernmost  apse  of  the  south-east  transept,  where 
it  was  re-dedicated  in  honour  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist. 

1 Gervase,  R.S.,  vol.  i.  pp.  23,  24. 


REBUILDING  THE  CHOIR 

The  old  chapel  was  then  destroyed,  and  in  its  place 
William  erected  the  present  beautiful  structure,  con- 
sisting of  two  unequal  straight  bays,  and  five  which 
form  the  eastern  apse,  the  whole  being  surrounded  by 
side  aisles  and  an  ambulatory.  It  was  in  these  side 
aisles  and  in  the  corona,  says  Professor  Willis,  that 
“ our  English  William  appears  to  have  freed  himself 
almost  as  completely  from  the  shackles  of  imitation 
as  was  possible.  In  the  side  aisles  the  mouldings  of 
the  ribs  still  remain  the  same,  but  their  management 
in  connection  with  the  side  walls,  and  the  combination 
of  slender  shafts  with  those  of  the  twin  lancet  windows, 
here  introduced  for  the  first  time,  is  very  happy. 
Slender  shafts  of  marble  are  employed  in  profusion  by 
William  of  Sens.  But  here  we  find  them  either 
detached  from  the  piers  or  combined  with  them  in 
such  a manner  as  to  give  a much  greater  lightness  and 
elegance  of  effect  than  in  the  work  of  the  previous 
architect.  The  lightness  of  style  is  carried  still  further 
in  the  corona,  where  the  slender  shafts  are  carried 
round  the  walls  and  made  principal  supports  of  the 
pier  arches,  over  which  are  placed  a light  triforium  and 
clerestory ; and  it  must  be  remarked  that  all  the 
arches  in  this  part  of  the  building  are  of  a single  order 
of  mouldings,  instead  of  two  orders,  as  in  the  pier 
arches  and  triforium  of  the  choir.”  1 

The  piers  of  St.  Thomas’  Chapel  are  composed 
each  of  two  columns,  set  one  behind  the  other.  The 
innermost  column  of  the  second  pair  on  either  side 
is  of  pink  Sicilian  marble  ; these  stood  nearest  to  the 
shrine  of  St.  Thomas,  and  there  is  a tradition  that 
they  were  sent  to  Canterbury  by  Pope  Innocent  III, 
but  of  this  there  is  no  documentary  evidence  what- 
soever. 

Gervase’s  account  of  the  building  operations  breaks 
off  somewhat  suddenly  at  the  end  of  the  tenth  year 
from  the  commencement  (1184).  And  although  he 
1 Willis,  “ Architectural  History,”  O'p.  cit.  p.  95. 


99 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

distinctly  states  that  the  round  tower  or  corona  at  the 
extreme  eastern  end  of  the  church  was  roofed  in  by 
the  above  date,  it  is  not  quite  certain  whether  in  its 
upper  story  it  was  ever  actually  completed.  Accord- 
ing to  tradition,  the  monks  intended  to  finish  it  in 
the  early  part  of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  it  is 
clear  that  some  work  was  done  to  it  at  about  that 
date  ; but  it  was  discontinued  when  the  monastery  was 
suppressed  by  King  Henry  VIII,  with  the  result  that 
the  topmost  story  was  left  in  an  unfinished  and  ragged 
condition.  Nor  was  the  appearance  of  the  corona 
improved  by  an  attempt  to  mend  matters  in  the 
eighteenth  century.  About  fifty  years  ago  further 
projects  for  completing  it  were  set  on  foot.  Willis,  in 
a letter  to  the  dean  and  chapter  dated  November  24, 
i860,  suggested  that  “ a conical  roof  should  be  placed 
on  the  corona,  with  a suitable  parapet,  and  that  the 
stair  turrets  should  be  carried  up  to  the  same  height  as 
the  Norman  turrets  of  the  eastern  transepts.”  At  the 
same  time  other  plans  were  submitted  by  Sir  Gilbert 
Scott  and  Mr.  Austin,  the  cathedral  surveyor.  The 
design  of  the  last-named  gentleman,  which  comprised 
three  spires,  seems  to  have  found  favour  with  certain 
members  of  the  governing  body,  and  much  of  the 
stone  necessary  for  carrying  it  into  effect  was  actually 
prepared.  Ultimately,  however,  wiser  counsels  pre- 
vailed and  the  scheme  was  abandoned.1 

The  various  points  in  which  the  new  choir  differed 
from  its  predecessor  are  enumerated  by  Gervase,  to 
whose  tract  Willis  has  added  an  admirable  com- 
mentary ; but  it  will  only  be  possible  here  to  indicate 
in  the  briefest  outline  the  more  salient  features  which 
distinguished  the  two  buildings. 

In  altitude  the  new  choir  much  excelled  the  old  one. 
Its  walls  were  about  fourteen  feet  higher  than  Ernulf’s 
walls.  Hence  the  apex  of  the  roof  of  the  old  choir 

1 The  wrought  stone  is  still  stored  in  the  passage  leading  from  the 
cloister  to  the  infirmary. 

IOO 


REBUILDING  THE  CHOIR 

would  not  have  risen  much  above  the  wall  plate  of  the 
new  one.  All  Ernulf’s  mouldings  were  sculptured 
with  an  axe,  while  those  of  the  two  Williams  were 
carved  with  a chisel ; and  whereas  the  former  were 
monotonous  repetitions  of  the  same  design,  the 
latter  exhibit  an  immense  variety  of  form,  and  in  the 
case  of  the  capitals  of  the  main  piers  are  of  unsur- 
passed beauty  and  faultless  in  execution.  Instead  of 
the  invariable  round-headed  arch  of  the  older  building, 
we  now  find  round  and  pointed  arches  intermingled. 
Thus  while  the  principal  arches  and  those  of  the 
clerestory  are  all  pointed,  those  of  the  triforium  exhibit 
the  two  orders  combined.  A further  novelty  was  the 
introduction  of  Purbeck  or  Petworth  marble  shafts, 
of  which  both  the  Frenchman  and  his  English  successor 
made  lavish  use.  The  fashion  had  its  origin  in 
Flanders,  where  architects  had  already  discovered  the 
excellent  effect  of  black  Belgian  marble  pillars  set  in 
the  angles  of  white  stone.  “ The  turned  shafts  of 
marble,”  says  Mr.  Prior,  “ induced  the  round-planned 
abacus  and  the  moulded  capital,  and  these  led  to 
changes  in  the  arch  mouldings.  The  multiplied 
mouldings  of  the  English  arches,  their  labels,  their 
dog-tooth  enrichments,  their  use  of  arcadings,  all 
grew  from  the  fact  that  the  masons  of  Kent  and  Sussex 
had,  by  reason  of  the  lack  of  native  stone  on  the  spot, 
to  get  their  material  from  over  the  sea  from  two 
quarters — that  is,  from  Normandy  and  Flanders — the 
result  being  that  there  gradually  grew  up  two  distinct 
classes  of  masons — the  marblers  and  the  white  stone- 
cutters.” 1 

With  regard  to  the  ground  plan  of  the  new  choir, 
the  additions  made  by  the  two  Williams  will  at  once 
become  apparent  when  the  plans  of  the  old  and  new 
choirs  are  compared.  And  it  wifi  also  be  noticed  that 
the  contraction  of  the  later  choir  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  the  presbytery,  and  the  expansion  of  the  retro- 
1 “ Cathedral  Builders,”  ut  supa,  p.  46. 


IOI 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

choir  which  forms  such  a beautiful  and  unique  feature, 
are  due  to  the  retention  of  Ernulf’ s towers,  which  in 
the  old  church  flanked  the  curve  of  the  apse.  These 
towers,  as  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  Norman 
drawing  at  p.  22,  were  originally  equal  in  height 
to  the  western  towers.  At  what  time  they  were  cut 
down  to  their  present  height  is  unknown.  But  it  is 
not  unlikely  that  this  was  done  when  the  corona  was 
built,  and  that  the  two  large  stair  turrets  of  the  corona 
were  intended  to  take  the  place  of  the  earlier  towers, 
since  there  are  indications  that  they  were  designed  to 
be  carried  up  at  least  one  story  beyond  their  present 
altitude. 

Archbishop  Richard  lived  just  long  enough  to  see 
the  completion  of  the  new  choir.  He  died  at  Hailing, 
near  Rochester,  on  February  16,  1184,  and  was  buried 
with  great  pomp  in  the  chapel  of  St.  Mary  in  the 
north  aisle  of  the  nave  of  his  cathedral  church. 

C.  E.  W. 


102 


CHAPTER  VI 


GROWTH  OF  THE  POWER  OF  THE  MONKS  OF 
CHRIST  CHURCH,  AND  THEIR  STRUGGLE  WITH 
ARCHBISHOPS  BALDWIN  AND  HUBERT  WALTER 

During  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  which 
elapsed  between  Lanfranc’s  reconstitution  of  the 
convent  of  Christ  Church  and  the  election  of  Baldwin 
to  the  Primacy  the  power 
and  influence  of  the  monks 
had  been  making  continual 
growth.  For  this  there 
were  several  contributory 
causes.  The  conventual  es- 
tates were  augmented  yearly 
by  the  piety  of  Churchmen, 
whose  liberality  was  as  yet 
unchecked  by  any  Statute 
of  Mortmain  ; while  in 
their  administration  the 
ordinance  of  Anselm  had  given  the  monks  a prac- 
tical autonomy.  Becket’s  great  charter  of  privileges 
had  done  much  for  the  prestige  of  the  metropolitical 
church  by  limiting  to  its  walls  the  consecration  of 
all  bishops  of  the  province ; and  the  possession  of 
the  wonder-working  relics  of  St..  Thomas  had,  of 
course,  added  enormously  to  the  sense  of  self-importance 
with  which  the  monks  of  Christ  Church  were  beginning 
to  regard  themselves.  Hence  by  the  end  of  the  twelfth 
century  we  find  the  prior  and  convent  putting  forth 
the  claim  that  they  were  the  permanent  governing 
body  of  the  church  of  Canterbury,  to  which  body 

103 


Capital  in  the  Crypt 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

even  the  archbishop  owed  his  election  and  professed 
obedience.  These  pretensions  were  first  resisted  by 
the  monks  of  Rochester.  From  the  circumstances  of 
its  foundation,  the  See  of  Rochester  had  always  been 
regarded  as  peculiarly  dependent  upon  Canterbury. 
As  a mark  of  this  dependence  it  was  the  custom  for 
the  monks  of  the  priory  of  St.  Andrew,  on  the  death  of 
a bishop  of  Rochester,  to  take  the  pastoral  staff  of  the 
deceased  prelate  to  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,  where 
it  was  laid  upon  the  high  altar,  whence  the  newly 
elected  bishop  took  it  after  his  consecration.  The 
Rochester  monks  did  not  object  to  the  custom  in 
itself,  but  took  exception  to  the  claim  made  by  the 
prior  of  Christ  Church  that  the  staff  must  be  delivered 
to  him  as  representing  the  church  of  Canterbury.  In 
order  to  escape  the  humiliating  ceremony  after  the 
death  of  Bishop  Gualeran  in  1185  they  buried  the  staff 
in  the  bishop’s  grave.  But  the  monks  of  Christ  Church 
were  at  once  up  in  arms.  The  rights  of  the  mother- 
church,  they  insisted,  must  be  maintained  and  the 
staff  duly  delivered  to  their  prior. 

The  controversy,  which  is  only  mentioned  as  illus- 
trative of  the  attitude  the  monks  of  Christ  Church  were 
beginning  to  assume,  was  at  length  settled  by  a 
Compromise,  whereby  it  was  arranged  that  the  arch- 
bishop should  receive  the  staff  and  deliver  it  to  the 
prior,  by  whom  it  should  be  placed  on  the  high  altar. 

The  claim  put  forward  to  the  exclusive  control  of 
archiepiscopal  elections  was  a far  more  important 
matter,  but  it  was  founded  on  the  same  preposterous 
argument  that  the  privileges  of  the  church  of  Canter- 
bury resided  in  the  monks  of  Christ  Church,  and  in 
their  body  alone.  Thus  on  the  death  of  Archbishop 
Richard  (February  16,  1184),  without  inviting  any 
co-operation  on  the  part  of  the  bishops  of  the  province, 
the  convent  proceeded  to  an  election.  Their  choice 
fell  upon  Odo,  abbot  of  Battle,  who  had  been  Prior  of 
Canterbury  at  the  time  of  Becket’s  murder.  To 
104 


POWER  OF  THE  MONKS 

King  Henry  Odo’s  name  recalled  unpleasant  reminis- 
cences, and  he  not  only  refused  point-blank  to  sanction 
the  appointment,  but  in  conversation  with  the  Count 
of  Flanders  had  some  hard  things  to  say  about  the 
Prior  of  Christ  Church,  whom  he  designated  as  a proud 
fellow  who  thought  he  could  make  archbishops  at  his 
will,  and  aimed  at  being  a sort  of  second  Pope  in 
England.1 

When  at  length  it  became  evident  that  the  election  of 
their  candidate  could  not  be  carried  through,  the  monks 
reluctantly  allowed  Prior  Alan  to  submit  three  other 
names  to  the  bishops.  The  suffragans  chose  Baldwin, 
bishop  of  Worcester,  and  at  once  proceeded  to  celebrate 
their  election  without  waiting  to  hear  how  their  choice 
was  received  by  the  monks,  who  accordingly  repudiated 
it  altogether.  It  was  in  vain  that  the  King  sent  his 
sons  Geoffrey  and  John  to  persuade  the  convent  to 
ratify  the  election.  The  monks  remained  obdurate, 
and  Henry  was  himself  constrained  to  visit  Canter- 
bury. To  the  brethren  assembled  in  their  Chapter- 
house  the  King  protested  that  his  action  in  the  matter 
was  dictated  solely  by  his  regard  for  the  honour  of 
their  church  and  the  peace  of  his  realm.  The  proud 
monarch  ended  his  speech  on  his  knees,  and  with  tears 
in  his  eyes  besought  the  brethren  to  adopt  a more 
reasonable  attitude.  In  response  to  this  passionate 
appeal  the  convent  at  length  consented  to  ratify  the 
election,  and  the  King  returned  to  London.  But 
no  sooner  had  he  done  so  than  news  was  brought  to 
Canterbury  that  the  King  after  all  intended  to  regard 
the  election  as  the  work  of  the  bishops  alone.  Prior 
Alan  thereupon  hurriedly  set  off  to  London,  where 
during  his  interview  with  the  King  an  incident  occurred 
which  brings  out  in  a remarkable  manner  the  nervous- 
ness which  even  such  a monarch  as  Henry  II  could 
display  when  dealing  with  the  monks  of  Canterbury. 
In  reply  to  the  Prior,  who  pleaded  that  Baldwin’s 
1 Gervase,  ut  supra,  R.S.,  p.  313. 


IOS 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

election  had  been  unduly  made,  the  King  declared 
that  he  could  not  now  humiliate  the  bishops  by 
repudiating  it.  Whereupon  the  Prior  fainted  away, 
and  the  King,  thinking  that  he  was  about  to  give  up 
the  ghost,  hastily  called  those  about  him  to  witness 
that  he  was  in  no  way  responsible  for  what  had 
happened.  He  then  called  for  water,  and,  dashing  it 
in  the  Prior’s  face,  addressed  him  thus,  “ Take  heart, 
take  heart,  my  lord  prior,  I spoke  in  jest.  I will  do 
all  you  say  and  more  if  you  will  only  take  heart  and 
cheer  up  ” ( conjortare  tantum  et  esto  jucundus)} 

To  the  intense  relief  of  the  King,  who  doubtless 
feared  that  if  the  fit  should  have  a fatal  termination 
there  would  be  a second  Becket  business  upon  his 
hands,  the  Prior  speedily  recovered  his  senses,  and  was 
able  to  resume  his  seat.  But  the  day  was  won,  and  the 
King  forthwith  declared  the  election  was  irregular. 

At  length,  on  Baldwin  notifying  that  he  could  on 
no  account  accept  the  see  without  the  concurrence 
of  the  monks  of  Christ  Church,  Prior  Alan  had  the 
grace  to  declare  that  their  choice  fell  upon  the 
bishop  of  Worcester,  and  Baldwin’s  election  was  cele- 
brated by  the  singing  of  the  Te  Deum  in  the  Abbey 
of  Westminster. 

The  new  Primate  was  a distinguished  scholar  and 
a man  of  singular  sanctity,  courage,  and  honesty,  but, 
like  Laud  in  after  days,  was  sadly  deficient  in  tact. 
Moreover,  as  a member  of  the  Cistercian  Order  he 
had  no  very  high  opinion  of  the  whole  body  of  un- 
reformed Benedictines,  and  regarded  with  peculiar 
disfavour  the  worldly  temper  and  independent  spirit 
displayed  by  the  monks  of  his  own  cathedral  church. 
Hence  trouble  speedily  broke  out  between  the  convent 
and  its  titular  head.  On  the  anniversary  of  his 
election  the  Archbishop  gave  the  first  example  of  his 
want  of  tact  by  interfering  in  matters  concerning  the 
domestic  economy  of  the  house.  It  had  been  the 
1 Gervase,  op.  cit.  p.  324. 

I06 


POWER  OF  PHE  MONKS 

custom  for  the  tenants  of  the  Christ  Church  manors 
to  send  presents  to  the  monastery  at  the  feasts  of 
Christmas  and  Easter.  These  gifts,  which  were  made 
in  kind,  comprised  such  things  as  game,  fish,  eggs, 
capons,  and  peahens,  and  were  doubtless  very  welcome 
additions  to  the  monastic  fare  at  the  festal  seasons. 
To  the  ascetic  mind  of  Baldwin  these  luxuries  were 
abhorrent,  and  he  gave  orders  that  such  things  must 
no  longer  be  brought  into  the  monastery.  A little 
later  he  still  further  offended  the  susceptibilities  of  the 
monks  by  taking  into  his  own  hands  the  profits  of  the 
rectories  of  Monkton,  Eastry,  Mepham,  and  Eynsford, 
which  the  monks  alleged  were  appropriated  to  their 
almonry.  This  was  more  than  they  could  stand, 
and  they  promptly  appealed  to  Rome.  The  only 
reply  the  Archbishop  made  was  to  seize  the  monastic 
estates.  Such  a high-handed  proceeding,  however, 
gave  rise  to  so  much  dissatisfaction,  not  only  in  the 
convent  but  throughout  the  country  generally,  that 
the  Archbishop  perceived  that  he  had  gone  too  far. 
The  manors  were  therefore  restored  to  the  monks, 
who  on  their  part  withdrew  their  appeal.  But  Baldwin 
was  only  waiting  for  a more  favourable  opportunity. 
He  had  already  sent  his  envoys  to  Rome,  and  the 
convent  was  astounded  by  the  news  that  he  had 
! obtained  from  the  Pope  (Lucius  III)  a licence  to 
found  a new  collegiate  church  at  Hackington,  a village 
situated  only  about  half  a mile  from  the  cathedral 
church. 

Although  the  Archbishop  declared  that  he  had  no 
sinister  design  against  the  privileges  of  the  monks, 
since  his  intention  was  merely  to  endow  a college  out 
of  his  own  estates  to  be  tenanted  by  men  of  learning, 
usefulness,  and  distinction,  the  monks  at  once  suspected 
that  the  new  foundation  was  meant  to  serve  as  an 
electoral  college  which  would  usurp  the  rights  of 
their  house  in  matters  relating  to  archiepiscopal 
| elections.  Nor  is  it  possible  after  examining  the 

107 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

nature  of  the  proposed  foundation  to  resist  the  con- 
clusion that  it  was  intended  to  serve  some  such 
purpose.  Thus  the  new  church,  which  was  to  be 
dedicated  in  honour  of  St.  Stephen  and  St.  Thomas 
of  Canterbury,  was  to  be  served  by  sixty  or  seventy 
canons.  A stall  was  to  be  allotted  to  the  King,  and 
one  to  each  bishop  of  the  province,  who  were  to 
appoint  each  his  prebendary  and  vicar.  The  rest  of 
the  canons  were  to  be  chosen  from  those  priests  who 
held  benefices  in  the  gift  of  the  archbishop  or  of  the 
prior  and  convent  of  Christ  Church. 

The  quarrel  which  now  broke  out  was  maintained 
with  the  utmost  acrimony  on  both  sides  for  the  next 
six  years,  and  excited  both  in  England  and  upon  the 
continent  of  Europe  an  interest  which  now  seems 
quite  disproportionate  to  the  issues  involved.  In 
England  the  King  and  the  bishops  supported  the 
Archbishop,  while  abroad  Philip  of  France  and 
Philip  of  Flanders  sided  with  the  monks.  At  Rome 
the  College  of  Cardinals  were  divided  in  opinion, 
and  as  there  were  several  changes  in  the  occupancy 
of  the  Chair  of  St.  Peter  during  the  period,  the 
policy  of  one  Pope  was  frequently  reversed  by  his 
successor. 

The  first  appeal  to  the  Curia  was  prompted  by 
St.  Thomas  himself,  who  appeared  in  a vision  to  a 
monk  named  Andrew  John,  to  whom  he  revealed  the 
machinations  of  the  Archbishop,  declaring  that  it  was 
his  intention  to  remove  the  Patriarchal  Seat  to 
Hackington  and  utterly  annihilate  the  privileges  of 
the  church  of  Canterbury.  The  gleaming  sword 
which  the  saint  held  in  his  hand  was  inscribed 
Gladius  beati  Petri  apostolic  and  when  on  the 
morrow  the  monk  told  his  dream  it  was  not  unnaturally 
interpreted  to  mean  that  the  most  effective  weapon 
the  convent  could  take  would  be  the  sword  of  St.  Peter, 
or,  in  other  words,  an  appeal  to  Rome.  To  Rome,  then, 
Prior  Honorius  was  sent,  with  the  result  that  the 
108 


POWER  OF  THE  MONKS 


licence  to  build  at  Hackington  was  revoked  by 
Urban  III.  But  the  Archbishop  merely  selected  a 
new  site  opposite  to  St.  Dunstan’s  Church,  beyond  the 
west  gate  of  the  city,  and  there  recommenced  to  erect 
his  college.  On  Ash  Wednesday  1187,  the  King  him- 
self came  to  Canterbury  for  the  purpose  of  acting  as 
arbitrator.  He  was  accompanied  by  the  Archbishop, 
the  bishops  of  London,  Norwich,  Durham,  and 
Worcester,  the  abbots  of  Westminster,  St.  Edmunds 
(Bury),  and  Peterborough,  and  a large  number  of  earls 
and  barons.  The  King,  with  the  Archbishop  and 
Hubert  Walter,  bishop  of  Norwich,  and  Peter  of 
Blois,  bishop  of  Durham  (described  by  Gervase  as  the 
impudent  fomenter  of  all  the  trouble),  entered  the 
chapter-house  ; but  the  monks,  with  the  exception 
of  the  sub-Prior  and  five  of  the  brethren,  were  ex- 
cluded by  order  of  the  King. 

“ The  little  band,’5  says  Gervase,  “ took  their  seats 
and  with  bent  heads  but  brave  hearts  waited  like  sheep 
appointed  to  the  slaughter,  while  the  Archbishop  and 
the  bishops  stood  opposite  to  them.  A vast  con- 
course of  people  were  assembled,  and  those  five  monks 
were  a spectacle  to  God,  angels,  and  men.  In  the 
! meantime  the  convent  went  to  their  prayers  in  the 
church.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  people  fought 
while  Moses  prayed.  But  here,  on  the  contrary,  the 
- sub-Prior  conducted  the  struggle  while  the  convent 
engaged  in  prayer.”  1 

“ The  little  band,”  however,  did  not  adopt  a 
particularly  meek  attitude  in  the  controversy  which 
ensued  ; on  the  contrary,  they  showed  a very  bold 
; front,  so  that  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  the  King  to 
establish  some  compromise,  the  conference  broke  up 
without  effecting  anything. 

At  this  juncture  the  archbishop  still  further 
increased  his  unpopularity  in  the  convent  by  ap- 
pointing a partisan  of  his  own,  and — if  we  may 
1 Gervase,  ut  supra , p.  354. 


IO9 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

trust  Gervase' — a man  of  worthless  character  to  the 
office  of  cellarer.1 

Meanwhile  Prior  Honorius  had  at  length  induced 
the  Pope  to  issue  a mandate  for  the  destruction  of 
the  obnoxious  college,  but  before  it  could  be  served 
upon  the  Archbishop  Pope  Urban  died,  and  with  the 
election  of  his  successor  came  a change  of  policy,  with 
the  result  that  the  monks  seemed  as  far  off  as  ever 
from  obtaining  the  powers  they  desired. 

A further  source  of  trouble  was  the  demand  which 
the  King  now  made  that  the  treasure  of  their  church 
should  be  enrolled,  and  that  the  conventual  seal  should 
be  put  into  closer  custody.  The  sub-prior  replied  that 
as  to  treasure  the  chief  part  consisted  of  the  relics  of 
saints,  books,  charters,  and  the  sacred  vessels  and  vest- 
ments, and  that  such  things  could  not  be  publicly 
displayed.  As  for  the  convent  seal,  it  was  already 
under  four  keys.  Matters  now  took  a very  serious 
turn  for  the  monks.  Certain  partisans  of  the  Arch- 
bishop, headed  by  William  FitzNigel  (who  had  been 
an  accessory  in  the  murder  of  St.  Thomas),  broke 
a passage  through  the  precinct  wall,  and  thus  managed 
to  occupy  all  the  offices  in  the  court.  Amongst  the 
people  the  report  was  spread  abroad  that  the  Arch- 
bishop intended  to  disperse  the  convent  by  taking 
six  or  ten  monks  off  at  a time  in  waggons  and  dropping 
them  at  various  places.  The  celebration  of  divine  | 
service  was  suspended,  and  the  convent  practically 
placed  in  a state  of  siege.  Roger  Norreys,  the 
intruded  cellarer,  realising  that  things  might  now  be 
pleasanter  outside  than  inside  the  walls,  escaped  from 
the  convent  through  the  great  main  drain,  which 
discharged  into  the  city  ditch — a way  out  which 
Gervase  hints  was  well  suited  to  his  character. 
Norreys  at  once  sought  out  the  Archbishop,  whom  he 

1 Gervase  calls  Kim  a proud,  crafty  fellow,  of  pompous  speech,  an 
associate  of  women,  a lover  of  horses,  and  altogether  a person  of  incor- 
rigible behaviour.  Gervase,  ut  supra , p.  382. 

IIO 


POWER  OF  THE  MONKS 

found  at  Otford,  and  revealed  to  him  all  the  capitular 
secrets.1 

The  siege  of  the  monastery  was  now  so  strictly 
maintained  that  the  wretched  monks  would  have 
perished  of  hunger  had  it  not  been  for  the  sympathy 
of  the  citizens,  who  for  eighty-four  weeks  managed 
to  smuggle  into  the  precincts  a supply  of  provisions 
just  sufficient  to  keep  them  alive.  Even  the  Jews 
of  Canterbury  contributed  something,  and  prayed 
for  the  imprisoned  monks  in  their  synagogues  every 
Sabbath  day. 

So  important  a place  did  the  struggle  at  Canterbury 
fill  in  the  minds  of  both  king  and  people,  that  even 
at  the  great  Council  of  Geddington,  which  met  on 
February  II,  1188,  for  the  purpose  of  making  arrange- 
ments for  a fresh  crusade,  the  matter  was  brought 
forward.  Baldwin  strongly  urged  the  king  to  effect 
the  arrest  of  the  sub-prior  of  Christ  Church,  who 
lay  under  sentence  of  excommunication,  but  Henry, 
apprehensive  that  such  a course  might  lead  to  violence, 
and  dreading  above  all  things  that  further  blood  should 
be  shed  in  the  Cathedral  church,  in  his  name,  was  all 
for  caution. 

Meanwhile  there  had  been  another  change  in  the 
papacy,  and  the  new  Pope  (Clement  III),  reversing 
the  policy  of  his  predecessor,  confirmed  the  letters 
| apostolic  of  Urban  III,  and  addressed  his  mandate  to 
the  Abbot  of  Faversham  and  Master  Feramin,  who 
had  been  a member  of  Becket’s  household  and  was 
now  Master  of  St.  James’s  Hospital  at  Canterbury, 
bidding  them  fulminate  sentence  of  excommunication 
against  the  invaders  of  the  monastic  estates.  This  at 
once  removed  the  pressure,  and  the  monks  of  Christ 
Church  prepared  to  resume  divine  service,  which  had 
| been  discontinued  while  the  convent  was  in  a state  of 
! siege.  Accordingly  the  church  was  redressed  with  the 
i hangings  and  ornaments  which  for  some  months  had 
1 Gervase,  p.  404. 


I 


III 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

been  hidden  away ; and  on  Easter  Sunday  the  usual 
services  were  held— the  only  sign  of  mourning  being 
the  silence  of  the  organ,  which,  as  Gervase  tells  us, 
was  not  used,  to  mark  the  fact  that  excommunicated 
persons  were  still  in  possession  of  the  conventual 
estates. 

The  papal  mandate,  however,  was  disregarded  alike 
by  king,  archbishop,  secular  clergy  and  people.  And 
the  death  of  Prior  Honorius,  who  was  carried  off  by 
the  plague  together  with  several  members  of  the 
sacred  college  favourable  to  his  cause,  still  further 
depressed  the  cause  of  the  convent  at  Rome. 

But  the  pertinacity  of  the  brethren  was  invincible. 
Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  king  was  in  France, 
engaged  in  a war  with  Philip,  the  monks  continued 
to  follow  him  about,  and  at  the  most  inconvenient 
moments  appeared  with  their  tale  of  the  Archbishop’s 
misdoings.  Thus,  it  was  extremely  trying  to  a 
monarch  of  Henry’s  temper  to  find  a deputation  of 
Christ  Church  monks  waiting  for  him  at  Azay  imme- 
diately after  he  had  been  compelled  to  submit  to  the 
terms  of  the  French  king.  Henry  was  in  no  mood  to 
listen  to  their  complaints,  and  the  inoffensive  remark 
that  the  convent  “ came  to  greet  him  as  their  lord  ” 
was  sufficient  to  make  him  break  out  into  one  of  his 
fits  of  ungovernable  passion.  “ I have  been  your 
lord,  I am,  and  I will  be,  ye  wicked  traitors  ! ” he 
cried.  “ Get  you  hence  with  all  speed,  I will  hold 
converse  with  my  faithful  subjects.”  These  were 
the  last  words  he  addressed  to  the  monks  of  Christ 
Church,  from  whom,  it  must  be  confessed,  he  had 
suffered  much  provocation.  A few  days  later  he  died 
at  Chinon  (July  6,  1189). 

After  the  death  of  the  king  the  quarrel  between 
Baldwin  and  the  monks  was  patched  up  for  a few 
weeks ; but  in  the  autumn  of  the  same  year  it  broke 
out  again  with  renewed  violence  owing  to  the  extra- 
ordinary lack  of  tact  which  the  Archbishop  displayed 
112 


POWER  OF  THE  MONKS 

in  appointing  the  obnoxious  Roger  Norreys  to  the 
priorate  of  Christ  Church.  It  now  occurred  to  the 
convent  that  a little  judicious  bribery  might  induce 
King  Richard  to  take  a favourable  view  of  their  case, 
and  to  this  end  they  made  him  a present  of  500  marks. 
This  was  so  far  successful  that  the  king  consented  to 
investigate  the  matter.  Arbitrators  were  appointed, 
and  it  seemed  that  at  length  some  modus  vivendi  might 
be  reached.  But  negotiations  were  again  interrupted 
owing  to  the  tergiversations  of  the  monks,  who,  after 
accepting  the  proposed  terms,  refused  to  ratify  them 
until  they  had  been  submitted  to  the  whole  convent. 
At  this  unexpected  reverse  the  king  was  very  angry, 
and  exclaimed  with  an  oath,  “ Not  a single  foot  of 
your  property  shall  be  left.”  The  monastery  was 
again  placed  in  a state  of  siege,  and  not  only  were  all 
food-supplies  stopped,  but  gross  insults  were  offered 
to  pilgrims  seeking  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas. 

An  unfortunate  monk  who  was  caught  in  the  church- 
yard was  mounted  upon  a horse  and,  with  his  legs 
tied  beneath  the  belly  of  the  steed,  was  taken  off  to 
prison,  where,  chained  to  common  malefactors,  he 
nearly  perished  of  cold  and  hunger.  Indeed,  it  was 
reported  that  the  Archbishop  contemplated  ejecting 
the  monks  altogether  and  instituting  secular  clerks 
in  their  place.  The  consideration  that  this  might  be 
their  fate  at  length  induced  the  monks  to  adopt  a 
more  conciliatory  attitude,  and  on  the  arrival  of  the 
royal  officers  they  expressed  themselves  willing  to 
submit  their  cause  to  arbitration. 

On  November  27  King  Richard  himself  came  to 
Canterbury,  and  was  received  by  the  bishops  of 
England  and  the  monks  of  Christ  Church.  In  the 
Cathedral  a solemn  service  was  performed,  which, 
l Gervase  tells  us,  was  accompanied  by  organ-playing 
j and  the  singing  of  anthems.  The  scene  was  a notable 
I one  even  in  a place  which  has  witnessed  many  a 
stately  pageant,  both  before  and  since,  for  within  the 

H 113 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

walls  of  the  church  were  assembled  not  only  the  King 
of  England,  but  the  King  of  Scotland  with  his  brother 
David,  and  “ a vast  number  of  nobles,  both  spiritual 
and  lay.”  So  great  was  the  concourse  of  all  sorts  and 
conditions  of  men  that  the  chronicler  states  that  the 
strain  upon  the  hospitality  of  the  convent  was  so 
great  that  some  of  the  “ royal  pavilions  ” had  to  be 
erected  in  the  monastic  cloister.1  On  the  next  day 
the  King  deputed  the  Archbishop  of  Rouen  to  act 
as  mediator  between  the  contending  parties. 

But  the  task  of  effecting  a reconciliation  was  still 
difficult,  since  the  monks  would  listen  to  no  terms 
which  did  not  include  the  demolition  of  the  Hacking- 
ton  College  and  the  deposition  of  Prior  Norreys. 
At  length  the  Archbishop  yielded  on  both  the  above 
points,  the  monks  on  their  part  undertaking  that  on 
all  others  they  would  submit  themselves  to  their 
titular  head.  For  Norreys  Baldwin  found  prefer- 
ment as  Abbot  of  Evesham,  where  (according  to  the 
Canterbury  chronicler)  he  lived  a life  of  shameless 
profligacy,  which  fully  justified  the  opinion  which  the 
Canterbury  monks  seem  to  have  formed  of  his  character. 

Baldwin  now  retired  to  Lambeth,  where  by  an 
exchange  of  lands  with  the  Bishop  of  Rochester  he 
had  already  acquired  an  estate,  and  to  the  consterna- 
tion of  the  monks  began  to  cart  the  materials  of  the 
deserted  college  at  Hackington  to  the  new  site.  Fore-  | : 
seeing  that  the  convent  would  at  once  renew  their 
appeal  to  Rome,  the  Archbishop  forestalled  them  by 
taking  that  course  himself  ; and  after  publishing  his 
appeal  in  his  Cathedral  church,  he  took  from  its  altar 
the  staff  and  wallet  of  a pilgrim  and  set  off  to  join  the 
king  in  the  Holy  Land,  where  he  died  in  the  following 
November,  “ overwhelmed  with  grief  and  despair,” 
and  was  buried  at  Acre. 

1 “Tanta  itaque  convenit  multitude)  conditionis  diversae,  quanta 
nunquam  retroactis  temporibus  visa  est  adeo  ut  in  claustro  monachorum 
regis  tentoria  ponerentur.”  (Gervase,  op,  cit.  p.  474.) 

114 


POWER  OF  FEE  MONKS 

It  would  be  wearisome  to  relate  with  the  same  fulness 
of  detail  the  manner  in  which  the  struggle  was  main- 
tained by  Hubert  Walter,  who  (after  the  brief  primacy 
of  Reginald  Fitzjocelyn)  succeeded  to  the  chair  of 
St.  Augustine.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  old  trouble 
was  revived  by  the  determination  of  Hubert  to  com- 
plete the  church  at  Lambeth  which  Baldwin  had 
commenced.  It  was  in  vain  that  the  Archbishop 
offered  ample  security  that  his  new  foundation  would 
in  no  way  prejudice  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
mother  church.  In  order  to  reassure  the  monks  on 
this  point  he  was  ready  to  guarantee  that  every  new 
canon  of  Lambeth  should  take  oath  upon  the  altar  of 
the  Cathedral  church  that  he  would  do  nothing  to 
injure  her  rights  nor  be  a party  to  any  scheme  for 
the  translation  of  the  bishop’s  see  or  of  the  relics  of 
St.  Thomas  to  any  other  church.  Moreover,  in  order 
that  peace  and  brotherly  love  might  be  more  firmly 
established  between  the  members  of  the  two  founda- 
tions, he  proposed  that  the  first  stall  at  Lambeth  in 
choir  and  chapter -house  should  be  reserved  for  the 
prior  of  Canterbury,  who  might  take  part  in  all 
deliberations  of  the  canons  and  wear  their  habit  as 
long  as  he  was  resident  among  them.  These  con- 
cessions, however,  by  no  means  allayed  the  suspicions 
of  the  monks  of  Christ  Church,  who  persisted  in 
regarding  the  scheme  as  a menace  to  their  privileges. 
It  was  in  vain  that  the  king  took  the  new  church 
|rnder  his  protection  and  seized  the  conventual  estates. 
The  long  arm  of  Rome  was  again  stretched  out  and 
(Doth  king  and  archbishop  went  down  before  it.  The 
nandate  of  the  Pope,  which  reached  England  on 
November  20,  1198,  was  a document  of  portentous 
ength,  but  its  meaning  was  perfectly  clear : the 

cheme  must  be  abandoned  definitely  and  the  Lambeth 
College  rased  to  the  ground.  And  to  this  sentence 
iubert  was  compelled  to  bow. 

“ The  foundations  of  Hackington  and  Lambeth,” 

US 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

says  Bishop  Stubbs,  “ may  be  looked  upon  as  the  last 
attempt  to  utilise  the  properties  of  the  monasteries 
before  the  Reformation.  It  failed  signally,  and  the 
need  at  the  moment  was  satisfied  within  a few  years  by 
the  introduction  of  the  mendicant  orders  who  under- 
took the  religious  revival  of  the  people  . . . The 
monastic  body  had  sacrificed  the  opportunity  of  doing 
good  work  to  the  triumph  of  a moment.  The  great 
prize  of  their  ambition  fell  from  their  hands.  The 
position  henceforth  occupied  by  the  monks  of  Canter- 
bury— and  their  state  and  weight  may  be  taken  as  a 
fair  criterion  of  the  whole  system — was  void  of  all 
political  importance,  their  action  in  the  election  of 
the  primate  was  merely  nominal ; in  spite  of  many 
attempts  to  elect  men  of  their  own  order,  only  once 
more  did  a monk  fill  the  throne  of  Augustine.  With 
the  exception  of  Simon  Langham,  whose  merits  were 
by  no  means  those  of  a monastic  saint,  Baldwin  was 
the  last  monk  that  governed  the  Church  of  England.”  1 

C.  E.  W. 

1 Introduction  to  “ Epistolae  Cantuarienses,”  R.  S.  vol.  xxxviii. 


Capital  in  the  Crypt 


n 6 


CHAPTER  VII 


FROM  THE  GREAT  EXILE  TO  THE  DEATH  OF 
PRIOR  HENRY  OF  EASTRY 

1207—1331 

Archbishop  Hubert,  during  the  remaining  years  of 
his  pontificate,,  refrained  from  engaging  in  any  further 
passages  of  arms  with  the  prior  and  convent  of  Christ 
Church,  who  grew  to  regard  him  with  reverence  and 
affection. 

Gervase  tells  us  that  on  June  29,  1205,  he  celebrated 
high  mass  in  his  Cathedral  church  ; and  on  July  6 
he  affectionately  addressed  the  monks  in  the  chapter- 
house.  Alluding  to  the  possibility  of  his  own  death, 
he  asked  and  bestowed  forgiveness  for  any  offences. 
The  members  of  the  convent  wept  at  his  departure 
for  Teynham  manor  house.  There  on  July  11  he  was 
seized  with  fatal  illness.  Having  summoned  Gilbert 
de  Glanville,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  and  Geoffrey,  Prior 
of  Christ  Church,  he  made  his  will,  bequeathing  to 
the  convent  of  Christ  Church  much  valuable  plate 
and  many  rich  vestments.  He  died  on  July  13,  and 
on  the  following  day  was  buried  by  the  monks  with 
many  tears  and  lamentations  in  his  church  at  Canter- 
bury. The  position  of  his  grave  is  not  mentioned  by 
Gervase,  but  a MS.  in  the  library  of  Corpus  Christi 
College,  Cambridge,  which  once  belonged  to  Arch- 
bishop Parker,  states  that  Hubert  Walter  was  buried 
“ near  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas,  under  a window  on 
the  south  side.”  Only  one  tomb  in  the  Cathedral  is 
in  this  position — namely,  that  with  a roof-like  top,  on 
which  are  sculptured  four  human  heads  in  high  relief. 

1 17 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

In  the  last  century,  and  earlier,  tradition  associated 
this  tomb  with  the  body  of  Archbishop  Theobald, 
although  its  architectural  details  are  clearly  of  a later 
date.  In  order  to  set  matters  at  rest,  this  tomb  was 
opened  in  1890,  and  the  name  of  Hubert  was  found 
upon  a leaden  tablet  within.  When  the  lid  of  the 
stone  coffin  was  removed  the  desiccated  body  of  the 
Archbishop,  arrayed  in  full  pontificals,  was  disclosed. 
All  that  had  been  made  of  linen  or  wool  had  perished, 
but  the  silken  vestments,  which  are  exquisite  specimens 
of  the  art  of  the  weavers  and  embroiderers  of  the 
twelfth  century,  were  well  preserved.  The  coffin  also 
contained  the  Archbishop’s  ring,  set  with  a gnostic 
gem  engraved  with  a serpent  and  the  name  of  the 
god  Knu'phis  ; the  pastoral  staff  of  cedar  wood,  in 
the  knop  of  which  were  three  carved  gems  ( a fourth 
had  fallen  out)  ; and  a chalice  and  paten,  both  of 
silver,  parcel  gilt,  the  latter  engraved  with  the  Agnus 
Dei  and  inscribed  on  its  outer  rim  with  the  elegiac 
couplet : 

Ava  crucis,  tumulique  calyx  lapidisque  patena 
Stridonis  officium  Candida  bissus  habet. 

Which  has  been  Englished  thus  by  the  late  Canon 
Francis  Holland  : 

The  altar  duly  to  our  eyes,  brings  the  cross  of  sacrifice 
So  the  chalice’  fruitful  womb,  is  the  emblem  of  the  Tomb, 

And  the  Paten  thereupon,  shows  the  sealed  sepulchral  stone, 
Whilst  the  Corporal  o’er  the  Bread,  is  the  napkin  at  the  Head. 

The  vestments  have  been  placed  in  a glass  case  in  the 
chapter  library,  and  the  other  relics  are  preserved  in 
the  little  chantry  chapel  on  the  north  side  of  the 
retro-choir.  It  was  thought  at  the  time  that  the 
artistic  value  of  the  various  objects  the  coffin  contained 
might  condone  for  the  rifling  of  the  tomb.  But  it  is 
perhaps  a matter  for  regret  that  they  were  not 
reverently  replaced  after  photographs  had  been  taken, 
especially  since  the  artistic  value  of  the  various  objects 
118 


THE  GREAT  EXILE 

is  illustrated  quite  adequately  in  the  magnificent 
facsimiles  published  by  the  Society  of  Antiquaries  in 
their  V etusta  Monumenta. 

The  death  of  Archbishop  Hubert,  who  during  the 
latter  years  of  his  life  had  acted  as  Chancellor  of 
England,  removed  the  one  restraining  influence  over 
King  John,  and  it  was  not  long  before  the  monks  of 
Christ  Church  had  a foretaste  of  what  they  might 
now  expect  from  his  predatory  instincts.  For  no 
sooner  did  the  king  hear  of  the  death  of  the  Primate 
than  he  hastened  to  Canterbury.  It  was  not  his  first 
visit  by  any  means  ; indeed,  he  had  been  crowned  by 
Plubert,  together  with  his  Queen  Consort,  in  the 
metropolitical  church  four  years  earlier.  If  the  prior 
and  convent  thought  that  his  present  purpose  was 
merely  to  condole  with  them  for  the  loss  they  had 
; sustained,  they  were  speedily  undeceived,  for  the  king 
soon  managed  to  turn  the  conversation  towards  the 
effects  of  the  late  Primate.  “ His  chapel,  for  instance  ” 
(that  is,  the  sacred  vessels  and  vestments  which  the 
5 Archbishop  had  been  in  the  habit  of  taking  about  the 
diocese  with  him),  “ had  not  its  ornaments  cost  three 
hundred  marks  or  more  ? ” The  prior  said  that  this 
was  so.  “ Might  he  be  permitted  to  see  them  ? ” 
The  prior  could  not  very  well  refuse,  and  the 
king,  after  admiring  the  treasures  displayed,  calmly 
ordered  them  to  be  packed  up,  and  took  them  off  to 
Winchester. 

This  was  a bad  beginning,  but  the  monks  of  Christ 
Church  were  shortly  to  experience  much  worse  things 
l at  the  hands  of  King  John.  It  is,  however,  impossible 
! to  overlook  the  fact  that  the  fate  that  overtook  them 
! was  not  a little  due  to  their  own  conduct  in  the 
matter  of  the  election  of  a successor  to  Hubert,  which 
might  well  have  exasperated  a better-tempered 
monarch  than  John  Lackland. 

Thus,  even  before  the  body  of  the  late  Archbishop 
was  buried,  the  junior  monks  held  a secret  meeting 

1 19 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

in  the  chapter-house  by  night  ; elected  Reginald,  the 
sub-prior  to  the  vacant  see ; and,  conscious  that  their 
action  was  irregular,  at  once  despatched  him  to  Rome 
for  confirmation.  On  his  arrival,  however,  the  sub- 
prior found  himself  confronted  with  an  envoy  from 
the  suffragans,  who  of  course  opposed  his  candidature. 
Moreover,  the  monks  of  Christ  Church,  learning  that 
Reginald  had  violated  the  vow  of  secrecy  to  which  he 
had  been  bound,  by  publicly  proclaiming  himself  as 
the  elect  of  Canterbury,  withdrew  their  support. 

A fresh  election,  in  which  the  monks  acted  con- 
jointly with  the  bishops  of  the  province,  resulted  in 
the  choice  of  the  king’s  nominee,  John  de  Gray, 
bishop  of  Norwich,  who  was  forthwith  enthroned  in 
the  presence  of  the  king. 

John  was  so  much  pleased  with  this  compliancy  on 
the  part  of  the  monks  that  he  not  only  paid  the 
travelling  expenses  of  six  of  the  brethren  who  were  to 
go  to  Rome  for  the  purpose  of  getting  the  election 
confirmed,  but  in  order  to  expedite  matters  in  the 
Curia,  handed  to  the  envoys  the  enormous  sum  of 
eleven  thousand  marks.  It  is  therefore  scarcely  sur- 
prising to  learn  that  when  the  king  heard  that  the 
Pope,  without  any  reference  to  himself,  had  set  aside 
his  candidate  in  favour  of  Stephen  Langton,  and  that 
the  monks  of  Christ  Church  had  acquiesced  in  this 
arrangement,  his  rage  was  great.  In  an  ungovernable 
fit  of  passion  John  declared  that  the  monks  were  guilty  1 
of  treason  ; that  they  had  received  money  from  his 
treasury  under  false  pretences,  but  it  should  be  the 
last  time,  for  he  would  turn  them  out  of  their  house 
neck  and  crop — nay,  if  they  did  not  move  quickly  he 
would  burn  them  out.  In  terror  and  confusion,  the 
monks  withdrew  before  the  armed  bands  of  the  sheriff. 

“ Barefoot,  amid  the  tears  and  sobs  of  the  bystanders, 
seventy  Benedictines  and  one  hundred  lay  brothers 
took  leave  of  their  church  and  cloister  and  passed  the 
sea  into  Flanders  ; thirteen  from  age  and  sickness  were 
120 


THE  GREAT  EXILE 

unable  to  accompany  them.  . . . No  sooner  had  they 
set  foot  on  shore  than  they  were  met  by  the  pious 
Count  of  Gisnes,  who  brought  them  to  his  castle,  set 
food  before  them,  served  them  with  his  own  hands, 
and  provided  beasts  and  waggons  to  carry  them  to 
St.  Omers  . . . where  the  whole  body  found  enter- 
tainment and  consolation  for  twelve  days  with  the 
brethren  of  St.  Bertins.  The  prior  with  sixteen  of 
his  monks  remained  there  a whole  year  ; the  rest  were 
quartered  in  the  religious  houses  of  the  neighbour- 
hood.” 1 

Meanwhile,  since  public  opinion  demanded  that  the 
daily  offices  should  not  wholly  cease,  the  king  trans- 
ferred to  the  deserted  cloister  a few  monks  from  the 
neighbouring  Benedictine  monastery  of  St.  Augustine. 
But  the  services  of  these  imported  brethren  could  not 
have  been  required  for  long,  since  all  spiritual  acts 
were  shortly  afterwards  suspended  by  an  interdict. 

The  memorable  struggle  between  King  John  and 
Pope  Innocent  III.  forms  a familiar  chapter  of  English 
history,  but  need  not  here  detain  us  since  we  are 
concerned  only  with  its  effect  upon  the  monks  of 
Christ  Church.  In  the  end  John  was  compelled, 
under  the  pressure  brought  to  bear  by  Pandulph,  the 
papal  legate,  to  promise  that  he  would  allow  to  the 
church  of  Canterbury  the  right  of  free  election,  and 
that  he  would  indemnify  the  exiled  monks  for  all 
losses  incurred  through  his  tyrannous  conduct.  But 
since  the  king’s  promises  were  notoriously  worthless, 
their  performance  was  guaranteed  by  twelve  of  the 
most  powerful  barons  of  the  kingdom,  who  further 
embodied  their  intention  in  an  instrument  to  which 
each  set  his  seal.  The  document  was  then  sent  to 
the  banished  monks,  who,  fortified  by  its  possession, 
now  ventured  to  return.  They  recrossed  the  straits 
of  Dover  on  June  15,  1213,  but  the  sea  passage  was  too 

1 Stephen  Langton,  in  Newman’s  “ Lives  of  the  English  Saints,” 
p.  26,  London,  1844. 


I 2 1 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

much  for  the  aged  prior,  who  died  when  in  sight  of 
the  white  cliffs  of  his  native  land.  The  rest,  after  an 
absence  of  six  years,  found  themselves  once  more  safely- 
housed  under  the  shadow  of  the  great  church.  The 
guarantee  of  the  barons  was,  of  course,  carefully  pre- 
served, and  may  still  be  seen  amongst  the  Cathedral 
archives  with  its  appendant  seals. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  during  the  greater 
part  of  the  exile  England  had  been  under  the  interdict, 
pilgrimages  to  the  tomb  of  St.  Thomas  had  not  wholly 
ceased,  for  the  prior  of  St.  Martin’s,  Dover,  who 
appears  to  have  been  entrusted  with  the  custody  of 
the  offerings  while  the  rightful  guardians  of  the  tomb 
were  on  the  Continent,  was  now  able  to  hand  over  to 
them  .£245  1 os.,  which  sum  represented  the  offerings 
made  during  six  years.  This  shows  that  during  that 
period  pilgrimages  to  Canterbury  had  been  compara- 
tively infrequent.  Nor  did  the  receipts  from  this  source 
show  any  material  increase  during  the  remaining  years 
of  the  disastrous  reign  of  King  John.  The  part  played 
by  the  patriotic  Langton  in  the  great  political  crisis 
which  ended  at  Runnymede  is  well  known,  but  upon 
the  quiet  life  of  the  monks  in  the  Cathedral  cloister  the 
only  mark  of  those  troublous  times  is  to  be  found  in 
the  scanty  offerings  made  at  the  tomb  of  St.  Thomas.1 

The  accession  of  Henry  III  in  1216  brought 
more  settled  times,  and  the  offerings  speedily  rose 
to  their  normal  figure.  Four  years  later  the  monks 
resolved  to  celebrate  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  the 
death  of  St.  Thomas  by  the  translation  of  his  relics 
to  a magnificent  new  shrine  in  the  retro-choir ; but 
of  the  shrine  and  the  remarkable  ceremony  which 
accompanied  the  translation  we  have  already  given  a 
description. 

The  enormous  impetus  given  to  the  cult  of  St. 
Thomas  by  the  translation  of  his  relics  in  1220  pro- 

1 In  1216,  when  John’s  mercenaries  were  ravaging  the  county  of 
Kent,  only  £41  was  received  at  the  tomb  in  the  crypt. 

122 


O 

i — i 

& _ 
pm  ^ 

, N 

ffi  M 

H ^ 

Pm  r 

P3  2 

OO 
~p 
H < 


THE  GREAT  EXILE 

uced  in  the  monks  an  overwhelming  sense  of  gratitude 
)wards  the  saint  whose  merits  were  such  a valuable 
nancial  asset  to  their  house.  Hence  they  now 
ecided  that  the  time  had  come  for  their  ancient 
Dnventual  seal  to  be  superseded  by  another  on  which 
lould  appear  a representation  of  the  “ Martyrdom.” 
.ccordingly  on  the  new  seal  which  was  now  made  this 
:ene  took  the  place  of  the  seated  figure  of  our  Saviour, 
nd  for  the  old  legend  on  the  reverse,  “ ego  sum  via 
eritas  et  vita,”  the  following  words  were  substituted  : 

EST  HUIC  VITA  MORI  PRO  QUA  DUM  VIXIT  AMORI.  MORS 
RAT  ET  MEMORI  PER  MORTEM  VIVIT  HONORI.”  From  the 
’easurer’s  accounts  we  learn  that  in  1221  the  convent 
aid  3s.  id.  “ for  setting  up  a little  house  in  which  the 
nldsmith  might  fashion  the  new  seal.”1  A new  matrix 
iems  also  to  have  been  made  twelve  years  later,  since 
1 1233  6s.  8d.  was  paid  for  making  a new  seal.2 

It  was  at  this  period  that  the  Franciscan  friars  first 
ntered  England.  The  pioneers  of  the  order  landed 
t Dover  in  the  month  of  September  1224,  and  at 
nee  made  their  way  to  Canterbury,  where  they 
nocked  at  the  great  gate  of  the  priory  of  Christ 
'hurch  and  claimed  alms  and  hospitality  of  the 
lonks.  Being  armed  with  letters  of  recommendation 
‘om  Pope  Honorius,  the  little  party  (which  consisted 
f four  clerks  and  five  lay  brothers)  was  at  once  admitted 
nd  for  two  days  the  strangers  were  hospitably  but 
Dmewhat  contemptuously  entertained.  But  the  friars 
ad  come  to  stay,  since  in  less  than  fifty  years  a 
ranciscan  was  appointed  to  read  a divinity  lecture 
1 Canterbury  Cathedral,  and  before  the  end  of  the 
fid  century  a member  of  the  order  (John  Peckham) 
ad  attained  to  the  primacy  itself. 

The  financial  position  of  the  priory  was  now  so 
"tong  that  the  monks  were  able  to  spend  much  money 

1 “ Pro  quadam  domuncula  paranda  ad  opus  suum  aurifabri  ad 
ciendum  novum  sigillum  iii8  id.” 

2 “ In  opere  novi  sigilli  vij11  vi8  viiid.,> 


I23 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

upon  their  church  and  convent.  To  the  former  the 
most  notable  addition  was  the  magnificent  stained 
glass  which  was  now  placed  in  the  windows  surrounding 
the  shrine  and  in  the  corona.  These  windows  illus- 
trate scenes  in  the  life  of  St.  Thomas  and  the  miracles 
connected  with  his  cult.  Happily,  much  of  the  glass 
still  remains  in  situ , and  some  description  of  these 
windows  will  be  given  later.  In  the  court  the  building 
operations  included  a new  rejectorium  or  Frater  House, 
and  very  extensive  alterations  to  the  cloister. 

The  work  to  the  Frater  was  begun  in  the  year  1226, 
when,  as  the  treasurer’s  accounts  show,  more  than 
^100  was  spent  upon  it  ; and  the  work  went  forward 
during  the  next  ten  years,  under  the  supervision  of 
brother  John  Pikenot.  Of  the  Frater,  which  (as  is 
usual  in  Benedictine  houses)  was  upon  the  north  side 
of  the  cloister,  little  now  remains.  But  a portion  of 
its  eastern  wall  (in  the  garden  of  the  prebendal  house 
now  occupied  by  the  Bishop  of  Dover)  still  shows  the 
Early  English  ashlar  work  of  Pikenot’s  masons.  Far 
more  important  examples  of  their  skill,  however,  are 
afforded  by  the  three  doorways  in  the  cloister  which 
were  inserted  at  this  period.  Of  the  two  finely  moulded 
doorways  in  the  north  alley,  that  towards  the  west 
opened  into  the  vestibule  of  the  refectorium  ; while 
that  to  the  east  (now  blocked  up)  led  through  the  vaults 
beneath  that  building  into  the  kitchen  court.  The 
third  doorway  is  that  placed  at  the  angle  of  the  south 
and  east  alleys  of  the  cloister,  and  opens  into  the 
transept  of  the  martyrdom.  It  was  through  this 
entry  that  Becket  entered  the  church  on  the  fatefu 
December  29,  1170,  and  doubtless  the  memory  0 
that  fact  stirred  the  craftsmen  to  put  forth  here  their 
highest  efforts.  Unfortunately,  when  the  cloister  wa; 
rebuilt  in  the  fifteenth  century,  this  splendid  doorwaj 
was  ruthlessly  cut  about  and  overlaid  with  later  work 
but  even  in  its  present  mutilated  condition  it  is  ; 
thing  of  surpassing  beauty. 

124 


The  Cloister  Doorway , leading  to  the  “ Martyrdom  ” transept 


THE  GREAT  EXILE 

The  amount  of  money  spent  upon  the  cloister  shows 
that  the  work  here  must  have  been  of  an  extensive 
nature,  and  was  not  confined  to  the  northern  alley, 
which  alone  has  retained  the  trefoiled  arcading  of  the 
thirteenth  century  on  its  inner  wall.  From  the  large 
sums  spent  on  timber  and  carpenters5  wages  it  would 
seem  that  at  this  time  the  cloister  also  received  a new 
roof.  The  work  was  apparently  finished  in  1236,  since 
from  an  entry  in  the  treasurer’s  accounts  we  learn  that 
27s.  id.  was  paid  in  this  year  for  whitewashing  the 
doister.  Perhaps  against  the  visit  of  King  Henry  III, 
vho  came  to  Canterbury  in  the  above  year,  and  was 
:rowned  in  the  Cathedral  church  by  Archbishop 
Edmond. 

With  the  latter  prelate,  in  spite  of  his  saintly 
:haracter,  the  monks  of  Christ  Church  were  soon 
imbroiled.  The  first  occasion  of  discord  was  a dispute 
is  to  their  respective  rights,  jurisdictions  and  customs, 
"n  order  to  bolster  up  their  case  some  of  the  monks  even 
vent  the  length  of  tampering  with  the  records  in  their 
nuniment  chest.  The  matter  was  deemed  so  serious 
hat  an  inquiry  was  held  by  a papal  legate,  with  the 
esult  that  brother  Bartholomew  of  Sandwich  con- 
essed  that  he  had  burned  a charter — presumably  one 
hat  supported  the  claims  of  the  Archbishop.  Another 
>f  the  monks,  one  Simon  of  Hartlip,  admitted  that  he 
Lad  accidentally  destroyed  a charter  of  St.  Thomas, 
nd  further  alleged  that  the  prior  (John  de  Chatham) 
Lad  rewritten  it  word  for  word,  and  that  brother 
lalph  of  Orpington  had  then  affixed  the  old  seal  to 
he  new  charter  ! 

In  consequence  of  these  revelations  brother 
Bartholomew  was  sent  off  to  the  monastery  of  St.  Peter 
t Westminster ; brother  Simon  was  allowed  to  return 
o Christ  Church,  but  at  his  own  request  was  shortly 
fterwards  transferred  to  another  house  ; and  Prior 
ohn  resigned  his  office  and  joined  the  Carthusians. 
)ver  the  election  of  his  successor  there  was  more 

127 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

trouble.  The  choice  of  the  convent  fell  upon  Roger 
de  la  Lee,  but  the  Archbishop  refused  to  sanction  the 
appointment,  and  upon  the  monks  assuming  a con- 
tumacious attitude  he  solemnly  excommunicated  them. 
The  struggle  need  not  be  followed  in  detail.  It  will 
be  enough  to  say  that  the  monks  paid  little  or  no 
regard  to  the  ban  of  the  Archbishop,  who,  seeing  that 
he  could  get  no  support  either  from  the  king  or  the 
Pope,  retired  to  the  monastery  of  Pontigny,  where  he 
died  on  November  16,  1240.  Six  years  later  he  was 
canonised  as  St.  Edmund  of  Canterbury,  and  an  altar  in 
the  crypt  of  his  Cathedral  church  was  dedicated  to  him, 
at  which  King  Edward  I made  an  offering  in  the  year 
1297,  but  its  exact  position  has  not  been  ascertained. 

Roger  de  la  Lee,  to  whose  election  to  the  priorate 
Archbishop  Edmund  took  exception,  resigned  his' 
office  before  the  latter’s  death.  But  an  example  of 
work  carried  out  under  his  auspices  is  still  preserved 
in  the  substructure  of  what  is  now  the  Howley- 
Harrison  library,  but  which  until  the  middle  of  the 
seventeenth  century  supported  the  prior’s  private 
chapel.  The  vaulted  roof  of  this  ambulatory  and  the 
four  central  pillars  from  which  the  groining  shafts 
sprang  have  long  since  been  destroyed,  and  Roger 
de  la  Lee’s  work,  which  must  have  been  executed 
before  his  resignation  of  the  priorate  in  1244,  is  now 
represented  only  by  the  outer  walls  with  their  un-j 
glazed  window-like  openings. 

The  chapel  above  was  not  erected  until  at  least 
twenty  years  later,  when  Roger  of  St.  Alphege  was 
prior.  An  entry  in  the  treasurer’s  accounts  shows 
that  it  was  in  process  of  construction  in  the  yeai 
1254.  It  was  dedicated  to  Our  Lady  and  served  by 
two  chaplains,  and  at  a later  date  at  any  rate  possessed 
an  organ  and  a choir  of  surpliced  choristers.  Aftei 
the  suppression  of  the  monastery  the  chapel  was 
allotted  to  the  dean,  but  was  demolished  by  order  oi 
the  sequestrators  during  the  Commonwealth  period. 
128 


THE  GREAT  EXILE 

So  that  all  that  now  remains  of  the  work  of  Prior 
Roger  of  St.  Alphege  is  the  finely  moulded  western 


W estern  Doorway  of  the  Prior's  Chapel,  c.  1254 


doorway,  which  now  forms  the  entrance  to  the 
Howley-Harrison  library. 


r 


129 


CANTERBURT CATHEDRAL 

On  the  death  of  Archbishop  Edmund,  the  Pope 
appointed  to  the  primacy  Boniface  of  Savoy,  uncle  to 
Queen  Eleanor.  The  monks  of  Christ  Church  offered 
no  opposition  to  his  election  ; perhaps  they  imagined 
that  a prelate  so  highly  connected,  and  a foreigner  to 
boot,  would  consider  the  affairs  of  the  monastery 
beneath  his  notice  and  would  allow  them  a free  hand. 
Boniface,  however,  soon  showed  that  he  did  not  intend 
to  rule  as  King  Log.  Being  in  want  of  money  to  pay 
off  the  debts  incurred  by  his  predecessors,  he  hit  upon 
the  expedient  of  holding  visitations,  at  which  he 
exacted  heavy  fines  for  all  irregularities  of  conduct. 
The  monks  of  his  own  Cathedral  church  did  not 
escape,  and  so  heavily  did  he  mulct  them  for  breaches 
of  their  rule  that  the  convent  was  compelled 
to  mortgage  six  of  its  best  manors  to  pay  their 
debts. 

At  length  matters  were  brought  to  a crisis  by 
Boniface  citing  to  his  manor-house  at  Tenham  two 
monks  who  had  been  guilty  of  flagrant  misconduct. 
The  Prior  replied  that  all  offenders  against  the  rule 
should  be  dealt  with  and  corrected  in  the  Chapter- 
house  at  Canterbury  and  not  elsewhere  ; and  when 
the  Archbishop  remained  obdurate,  appealed  to 
Rome. 

The  whole  process  is  set  forth  on  a parchment  roll 
of  prodigious  length,  which  is  still  preserved  amongst  ! 
the  cathedral  archives.  This  document  (which  has 
never  been  published)  contains  so  many  curious 
particulars  that  we  are  tempted  to  give  here  a short 
summary  of  its  contents.  It  begins  with  a copy  of  a 
letter  from  Boniface  to  Prior  Roger  peremptorily 
summoning  him  to  appear  at  Tenham  to  answer  for 
his  neglect  to  carry  out  his  instructions  (delivered  at 
a recent  visitation)  that  brother  Hugh  de  Cretinge, 
who,  super  lapsu  carnis , had  broken  bounds  and 
associated  with  undesirable  characters  outside  the 
convent,  should  be  strictly  confined  to  the  cloister. 

130 


BONIFACE  AND  THE  MONKS 

The  certificate  of  William,  rector  of  St.  Martin’s  and 
dean  (rural)  of  Canterbury,  follows,  describing  the 
efforts  he  made  to  serve  the  above  summons.  He 
went  to  the  convent  early  in  the  morning,  but  found 
that  the  Prior  had  gone  off  to  Seasalter  for  the 
day ; the  monks  on  his  approach  hid  in  corners  and 
dodged  behind  the  pillars  of  the  church,  so  that  he 
could  not  get  near  them,  and  in  the  end  had  to 
be  content  with  reading  the  citation  in  the  Prior’s 
lodging,  and  again  before  the  high  altar  of  the  church. 
Then  comes  a statement  of  the  case  of  the  monks,  set 
forth  at  great  length,  for  the  use  of  the  proctors  who 
were  to  plead  their  cause  in  the  Roman  Curia.  But 
the  surprising  thing  is  that  the  convent  chose  as 
their  proctor  the  monk  who  had  caused  all  the 
trouble  ! 

The  document  next  describes  the  manner  in 
which  notice  of  the  appeal  was  served  upon  the 
Archbishop.  Boniface,  who  was  at  his  manor-house 
at  Tenham,  on  hearing  that  two  Christ  Church  monks 
wanted  to  see  him,  retired  to  an  inner  apartment  and 
refused  either  to  come  out  or  admit  the  monks,  who 
in  consequence  had  to  content  themselves  with  reading 
the  appeal  at  the  top  of  their  voices  in  the  hope  that 
in  this  way  its  tenor  might  reach  the  ears  of  the  Arch- 
bishop. At  length  Boniface  did  come  out,  and  met 
the  proctors  in  the  hall,  but  by  an  unfortunate  slip  of 
the  tongue  their  spokesman  at  once  ruffled  his  temper 
by  saying,  “ The  Lord  preserve  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,”  instead  of  the  usual  formula,  “ The  Lord 
preserve  our  lord  archbishop.”  It  was  in  vain  that 
the  proctors  pleaded  that  no  disrespect  was  meant, 
and  that  the  mistake  was  a mere  slip  due  to  the  un- 
familiarity of  a simple  monk  with  the  usages  of  his 
Grace’s  court.  Boniface  merely  snarled,  “ Yes,  simple 
fellows  you  are,  but  clever  enough  in  mischief,”  and 
brusquely  bade  them  begone. 

The  roll  then  goes  on  to  relate  how  on  the  next  day 

131 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

the  Archbishop  came  to  Canterbury  and  asked  to  be 
allowed  to  say  a few  words  in  the  Chapter -house,  assur- 
ing the  monks  that  it  was  not  his  intention  to  allude 
in  any  way  to  domestic  affairs.  The  brethren,  how- 
ever, were  suspicious,  remembering  that  Archbishop 
Edmund  had  under  a like  pretence  obtained  access  to 
the  Chapter -house  and  had  thereupon  removed  from 
his  office  their  sub-prior.  They  therefore  respect- 
fully declined  to  give  the  requisite  permission,  on  the 
ground  that  it  would  be  improper  for  the  Archbishop  to 
enter  the  Chapter -house  while  their  suit  was  pending* 
Greatly  enraged,  Boniface  exclaimed,  “ To-morrow  I 
will  enter  the  Chapter -house  and  whenever  I please, 
and  I give  you  warning  that  I will  excommunicate  the 
first  man  who  tries  to  hinder  me  ! ” On  the  morrow, 
however,  he  left  Canterbury  without  attempting  to 
carry  his  threat  into  execution. 

Instructions  for  the  use  of  the  proctors  follow.  The 
most  curious  are  those  relating  to  the  way  in  which 
they  should  distribute  the  money  which  the  convent 
provided  for  prosecuting  their  suit  in  the  Curia. 
Thus  they  are  warned  not  to  fritter  it  away  in  bribes 
to  the  cardinals  indiscriminately,  but  to  give  the 
greater  part  to  the  Pope  himself,  and  the  remainder 
to  those  members  of  the  Sacred  College  who  were 
known  to  be  well  affected  towards  their  cause.  More- 
over, an  expression  of  regret  is  added  that  the  sum 
available  for  this  purpose  was  not  larger,  supple- 
mented by  the  pious  hope  that  the  success  of  their 
suit  may  not  thereby  be  prejudiced.  From  other 
sources  we  learn  that  the  matter  was  ended  by  a 
composition,  less  favourable  to  the  monastic  party 
than  some  previous  ones  had  been.  So  that  perhaps 
the  result  was  to  some  extent  influenced  by  the  lack 
of  adequate  “ refreshers.”  The  Barons’  War,  how- 
ever, soon  distracted  the  attention  of  both  parties 
from  these  petty  jealousies ; and  Boniface  before  his 
death  had  so  far  forgotten  the  contumacious  conduct 
132 


BONIFACE  AND  THE  MONKS 

of  the  Prior  and  convent  that  he  bequeathed  to  them 
a suit  of  vestments  and  one  hundred  marks. 

Over  the  election  of  his  successor  there  was  more 
trouble.  The  monks  chose  their  Prior,  Adam  Chillen- 
den,  but  his  candidature  was  opposed  by  Prince 
Edward  on  the  ground  that  Chillenden  in  the  civil 
war  had  sided  with  the  barons.  Whether  this  was  so 
or  not  we  do  not  know,  but  the  charge  was  repudiated 
by  the  monks,  who,  in  a petition  to  the  College  of 
Cardinals  (the  Papal  chair  being  vacant),  asserted 
that  their  Prior  had  done  much  for  the  royal  cause 
by  lending  money  to  the  Queen,  and  that  after 
the  defeat  of  the  King  at  Lewes  Prince  Edward 
had  himself  found  shelter  and  entertainment 
within  the  walls  of  their  house.  The  candidature  of 
Chillenden,  however,  as  well  as  that  of  Robert 
Burnell,  the  King’s  nominee,  was  set  aside  by  Pope 
Gregory  X in  favour  of  Robert  Kilwardby,  a 
Dominican  friar,  who  was  consecrated  on  February 
26, 1273. 

During  the  two  and  a half  years  which  elapsed 
between  the  death  of  Boniface  and  the  consecration 
of  Kilwardby  the  Prior  and  convent  of  Christ  Church 
(as  guardians  of  the  spiritualities)  held  visitations  and 
heard  appeals  from  the  rulings  of  the  ecclesiastical 
courts  throughout  the  whole  southern  province.  The 
latter  prerogative  was,  of  course,  peculiarly  irritating 
to  the  suffragan  bishops,  whose  judgments  were  some- 
times set  aside  by  a court  of  whose  constitution  and 
impartiality  they  had  no  high ‘opinion.  To  Grosse- 
teste, the  independent-spirited  bishop  of  Lincoln, 
the  interposition  of  a body  of  monks  between  himself 
and  his  diocese  was  intolerable,  and  he  soon  showed 
that  he  would  have  none  of  it.  For  when  the  court 
of  the  Prior  and  convent  ventured  to  reverse  one  of 
his  judgments  he  refused  to  rehear  the  case;  and 
when  a summons  was  served  upon  him  to  appear  in 
the  Prior’s  court  to  purge  his  contempt,  he  trod  the 

133 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

obnoxious  document  under  his  feet,  although  (as  the 
awestruck  Canterbury  chronicler  relates  with  bated 
breath)  its  seal  actually  bore  a representation  of  the 
martyrdom  of  St.  Thomas  ! 

It  was  during  Kilwardby’s  archiepiscopate  that  a 
very  serious  feud  broke  out  between  the  citizens  of 
Canterbury  and  the  Christ  Church  monks,  through 
the  refusal  of  the  latter  to  bear  their  proportion  of  an 
assessment  laid  upon  the  city  by  the  King  for  his 
Welsh  campaign.  The  citizens  were  furious  at  being 
left  to  bear  the  burden  alone,  and  passed  a series  of 
bellicose  resolutions  threatening  the  monks  with  the 
direst  penalties  unless  they  paid  their  quota.  No 
citizen  would  occupy  any  house  owned  by  the  con- 
vent ; no  supplies  of  provisions  should  enter  the 
precincts ; to  prevent  all  ingress  or  egress,  a 
deep  trench  should  be  dug  before  the  great  gate  of 
the  monastery.  There  was  even  a thinly  disguised 
threat  that  they  would  loot  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas 
himself,  since  the  document  in  which  the  above 
resolutions  are  recorded  ends  with  these  ominous 
words  : “ That  every  one  of  these  commons  shall 
wear  on  his  finger  a ring  of  gold  that  belonged  to 
St.  Thomas.”  Fortunately  the  danger  was  averted 
by  the  tactful  mediation  of  the  Archbishop,  and  an 
amicable  relationship  between  the  city  and  convent 
was  once  more  established. 

Thomas  Ringmere,  who  was  Prior  at  the  time  of 
the  above  incident,  was  probably  not  a little  to  blame 
for  the  unpatriotic  attitude  of  the  monks,  for  he 
was  a singularly  impracticable  person.  Although  a 
man  of  learning  and  sanctity,  he  lacked  those 
qualities  which  even  in  a monastery  are  essential 
for  successful  rule.  Soon  after  his  election  he 
attempted  to  improve  the  discipline  of  the  house, 
which  he  found  in  a lax  condition,  but  he  only 
succeeded  in  incurring  the  odium  of  the  brethren 
without  effecting  the  amendment  of  their  manners. 

134 


PR10RATE  OF  HEN R Y OF  E ASF  RT 

At  length  he  became  the  object  of  so  much  aversion 
that  the  monks  trumped  up  a number  of  charges 
against  him  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  him  to  resign 
his  office.  To  these  charges  Ringmere  returned 
dignified  answers.  Thus  to  the  objection  that  he  was 
too  guileless  a person  to  have  the  rule  of  so  important 
a house,  he  replied,  “ Would  God  it  were  true  ! for 
He  ever  resisteth  the  proud  and  giveth  grace  to  the 
simple.”  To  the  more  serious  charge  that  he  had 

(converted  to  his  own  use  the  moneys  of  the  convent, 
he  answered  that  he  had  indeed  given  twenty  pounds 
to  the  King,  but  that  for  this  he  had  the  consent  of 
the  brethren,  as  the  conventual  books  would  show. 
But  although  he  had  no  difficulty  in  proving  that  the 
specific  charges  made  against  him  were  without  founda- 
tion, Ringmere  felt  that  it  would  be  well  for  him  to  lay- 
down a thankless  office  for  which  he  felt  himself  to  be 
by  temperament  unfitted.  He  therefore  resigned  the 
priorate  and,  leaving  Canterbury,  became  an  inmate 
of  the  Cistercian  abbey  at  Beaulieu  in  Hampshire. 
Later  he  became  a hermit  in  Windsor  Forest,  and  at 
length,  his  mind  being  now  quite  unhinged,  he  became 
dependent  upon  the  bounty  of  Archbishop  Winchelsey. 
A curious  letter  is  extant  amongst  the  cathedral 
archives  in  which  Winchelsey  suggests  to  Ringmere’s 
successor  at  Christ  Church  that  the  convent  should  do 
something  to  relieve  the  destitution  of  the  ex-Prior, 
and  hints  that  it  was  hardly  seemly  that  the  poor  man 
should  be  neglected  by  one  who  owed  his  preferment 
to  the  latter’s  abdication.  The  hint  was  taken,  and 
for  the  rest  of  his  life  Ringmere  received  from 
Christ  Church  a pension  of  ten  pounds  a year. 

Henry  of  Eastry,  to  whom  the  above  letter  was 
addressed,  was  elected  to  the  priorate  on  the  feast  of 
the  Translation  of  St.  Thomas  (July  7),  1284.  He 
continued  to  preside  over  the  house  for  more  than 
forty-six  years,  and  during  his  long  term  of  office 
the  fortunes  of  the  convent  probably  attained  to 

T3S 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

high-water  mark.  Endowed  with  an  infinite  capacity 
of  taking  pains,  Prior  Eastry  left  his  mark  upon  every 
department  of  monastic  administration.  His  talent 
for  finance  must  have  been  immense,  for  although  he 
found  the  church  burdened  with  a debt  of  nearly  five 
thousand  pounds,  he  was  able  (thirty-seven  years  later, 
when  at  the  age  of  eighty-two  he  believed  himself  to 
be  near  his  end  and  was  anxious  to  give  an  account 
of  his  stewardship)  to  draw  up  a financial  statement 
in  which  he  showed  that,  although  the  expenditure 
during  those  thirty-seven  years  had  exceeded  the  sum 
of  £21,000 — equivalent  to  more  than  £400,000  at  the 
present  day — the  church  was  entirely  free  from  debt. 
A long  list  of  Eastry’s  good  works  is  inscribed  in  the 
monastic  registers,1  and  has  been  printed  by  Willis.2 
Those  which  relate  to  additions  to  the  fabric  of  the 
church  and  monastery  may  be  summed  up  briefly  as 
follows : 

(1)  1292.  “ A new  great  clock,”  which  cost  £30, 

was  placed  in  the  church.  Its  position  is  not  stated, 
but  from  the  fact  that  in  Leland’s  time  there  was  a 
“ stately  Horologe , in  the  south  crossed  Isle  of  the 
Chirche,”  it  would  seem  likely  that  Eastry’s  clock  was 
placed  in  the  south-west  transept,  and  was  perhaps 
supported  by  the  stone  bracket  which  formerly  stood 
over  the  arch  of  St.  Michael’s  Chapel.3 

(2)  A new  room  beyond  the  treasury  ( ultra  Thesaur- 
ariurri).  This  was  probably  the  narrow  oblong  apart- 
ment which  abutted  on  the  west  wall  of  the  treasury, 
and  of  the  chapel  of  St.  Andrew,  known  in  post- 
Reformation  times  as  the  old  audit-house.  It  was 
pulled  down  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  eighteenth 

1 Register  I,  f.  212,  &c. 

3 “ History  of  the  Conventual  Buildings,”  op.  ext.  p.  185,  Sic. 

3 Leland  says  that,  according  to  tradition,  the  clock  was  given  to  the 
church  by  Cardinal  Langton ; but  it  is  unlikely  that  there  was  any 
clock  in  England  at  so  early  a date.  In  Dart’s  view  of  the  nave,  pub- 
lished in  1726,  a clock  is  shown  over  the  western  entrance  to  the  choir. 
It  was  removed  in  1760. 

136 


PRIORATE  OF  HENRT  OF  E ASF  RT 

century,  but  some  portions  of  its  sub-vaults  still 
remain. 

(3)  1298.  New  stalls  for  the  monks  in  the  choir. 
There  was  a double  row  of  thirty-five  stalls  on  either 
side  of  the  choir.  The  easternmost  stall  on  the  south 
side  formed  the  throne  of  the  Archbishop,  while  the 
opposite  stall  on  the  north  side  was  occupied  by  the 
Prior ; hence  the  stalls  on  the  Archbishop’s  side  were 
called  at  Canterbury  the  stalls  of  the  superior  choir, 
and  those  upon  the  Prior’s  side  the  stalls  of  the  inferior 
choir.  It  is  doubtful  whether  at  this  period  there  were 
any  return  stalls,  facing  east,  at  Canterbury.1  From 
the  absence  of  any  entries  in  the  treasurer’s  accounts 
relating  to  the  erection  of  stalls  at  a later  date,  it  would 
seem  that  Eastry’s  stalls  survived  until  the  opening 
years  of  the  eighteenth  century,  when  the  double  row 
of  ancient  stalls  was  replaced  by  wainscot  pewing. 
From  a picture  of  the  choir  painted  before  the  above 
alteration  was  made,  the  stalls  appear  to  have  been 
plain  elbow-seats  without  canopies.2 

(4)  1304.  “The  repair  of  the  whole  choir,  with 
three  new  doors,  and  a new  screen  (pulpitum) .” 

Eastry’s  work  in  the  choir  comprised  the  delicate 
and  elaborately  worked  tracery  which  surmounts  the 
solid  stone  screen  behind  the  stalls  and  which  is  con- 
tinued beyond  the  crossing  so  as  to  form  lateral  screens 
for  the  presbytery  and  sanctuary.  Where  it  flanked 
the  high  altar  and  the  shrines  of  St.  Dunstan  and  St. 
Alphege,  the  wall  below  the  tracery  is  ornamented 
with  a quatrefoil  diapering,  which  is  a distinctive  mark 
of  Eastry’s  work. 

The  three  new  doors  led  respectively  into  the  nave 

1 The  treasurer’s  accounts  for  the  year  1298-99  show  that  in  this  year 
the  Prior  and  convent  spent  £ij  18s.  3d.  in  setting  up  the  stalls  of  the 
inferior  choir  {inferior is  chori ),  and  that  in  the  same  year  one  Reginald 
Noldekyn  gave  £ 20  “ pro  novis  stallis  faciendis  in  choro.” 

2 See  a picture  of  the  choir  by  Thomas  Johnson  painted  soon  after 
the  restoration,  now  the  property  of  W.  D.  Caroe,  Esq.,  F.S.A.,  and 
reproduced  in  Archeeologia , 1911. 


137 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

and  the  south  and  north  transepts.  Of  these  doors, 
the  archway  of  that  leading  into  the  nave  still  remains 
within  the  western  choir  screen  ; the  second,  viz.  that 
leading  into  the  north  transept,  remains  to-day  much 
as  Eastry  left  it  ; but  the  third,  which  opened  into  the 
south  transept,  has  been  replaced  by  one  of  later  date. 
Perhaps  it  was  removed  to  make  way  for  Cardinal 
Kemp’s  tomb  in  1454. 

Eastry’s  pulpitum  or  western  choir  screen  was  re- 
modelled by  Prior  Chillenden  nearly  a hundred  years 
later,  but  beneath  the  seventeenth-century  panelling 
which  now  covers  its  eastern  face  the  pierced  tracery 
of  Eastry’s  fourteenth-century  screen  still  remains. 

(5)  The  repair  of  the  Chapter-house,  which  was  in 
progress  at  the  same  time  as  the  work  in  the  choir, 
comprised  the  rebuilding  of  the  gables,  the  lining  of 
the  lateral  walls  beneath  the  windows,  with  an  arcade 
of  trefoiled  arches  supported  by  pilasters  of  Sussex 
marble  and  surmounted  by  a cornice. 

(6)  1314.  A new  gold  crest  or  finial,  costing  10s., 
was  added  to  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas,  and  some 
portion  of  the  saint’s  skull  was  enclosed  in  a reliquary 
which  was  fashioned  out  of  gold  and  silver  in  the  form 
of  a human  head,  and  adorned  with  jewels,  at  a cost  of 

j£n5  12s.1 

(7)  1317.  A spire  of  timber  covered  with  lead  was 
erected  upon  the  north-western  tower  at  a cost  of 
£151  17s.  5d.  The  spire,  which  is  shown  in  Hollar’s 
view  for  Dugdale’s  Monasticon , was  taken  down  in 

I7°3- 

To  the  conventual  buildings  Eastry  made  many 
important  additions,  which,  with  one  exception,  are 
all  duly  recorded  in  the  catalogue  of  his  benefactions. 

(8)  The  monastic  brewery  on  the  north  side  of  the 
court,  part  of  which  now  serves  as  a school  for  the 
chorister  boys. 

1 “ Pro  corona  sancti  Thome  auro  et  argento  et  lapidibus  preciosis 
ornando  1 1 5“  12s.”  “ Treasurer’s  Accounts,”  sub  anno. 

138 


Chaffer -House  Door 


THE  ROUND  WATER-TOWER  AND 
THE  CHEKER  BUILDING 


PRIORATE  OF  HENRY  OF  EASTRY 

(9)  The  cheker  building  or  monastic  counting- 
house,  over  the  eastern  alley  of  the  infirmary  cloister. 
The  cheker , which  had  two  stories  of  chambers  above 
the  ambulatory,  was  pulled  down  in  1868,  but  the 
circular  stair  turret  by  which  the  upper  floors  were 
reached  was  happily 
spared,  and  forms  a 
very  picturesque  ob- 
ject when  seen  from 
the  deanery  garden. 

A work  of  some  im-  ‘ 
portance  carried  out 
by  Prior  Eastry,  of 
which,  however,  the 
list  of  his  good  works 
makes  no  mention, 
was  the  erection  of 
a new  chapel  in  the 
almonry  outside  the 
court  gate.  The 
was  dedicated 
. Thomas  of 
Canterbury,  and  was 
served  by  six  secular 
priests  (the  senior  of 
whom  was  styled  the 
dean),  who  lodged  in 
chambers  at  the  west  Cheker  Tower 

end  of  the  chapel  and 

dined  at  a common  table.  The  chapel  was  commenced 
in  the  year  1324,  and  must  have  been  finished  in  1328, 
since  in  the  latter  year  the  Bishop  of  St.  Davids  granted 
an  indulgence  to  all  persons  who  would  visit  the 
prior’s  new  chapel  and  contribute  to  its  furnishing.1 
On  the  suppression  of  the  priory,  the  almonry  remained 
in  the  King’s  hands  until  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary, 
by  whom  it  was  granted  to  her  cousin,  Cardinal  Pole, 
1 Canterbury  MS.  C.  182. 


chapel 
to  St 


m 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

and  the  latter  bequeathed  it  by  will  to  the  dean 
and  chapter  for  the  purpose  of  serving  as  premises 
for  the  cathedral  school.  In  1859,  when  new  build- 
ings for  the  school  were  erected  on  the  northern 
side  of  the  Mint  Yard , the  almonry  buildings  were 
demolished. 

In  addition  to  the  above  building  operations,  Eastry 
laid  out  enormous  sums  on  vestments  and  ornaments 
for  the  church.  These  acquisitions  are  set  forth  in 
full  in  the  great  inventory  of  1315,  now  preserved 
amongst  the  Cottonian  MSS.  in  the  British  Museum 
(Galba  E.  iv.).1  An  important  addition,  of  which  the 
inventory  of  1 3 15  makes  only  casual  mention,  was  the 
erection  of  a new  altar-piece  ( tabula ) for  the  high 
altar.  From  a letter  preserved  amongst  the  “ Eastry 
Correspondence  ” it  would  appear  that  the  new  altar- 
piece  consisted,  in  part  at  any  rate,  of  a picture  upon 
panels.  The  letter  in  question  was  addressed  to  Prior 
Eastry  by  Archbishop  Walter  Reynolds  (1324),  who 
indignantly  contradicts  a report  spread  abroad  by  the 
craftsman  employed  on  the  tabula — one  Jordan,  the 
fainter — that  he  (the  Archbishop)  disapproved  of  the 
design,  and  offers  to  subscribe  £ 20  towards  the  work 
if  the  Prior  can  get  Jordan  to  fulfil  his  contract,  the 
latter  (as  appears  from  another  letter  on  the  same 
subject)  being  desirous  of  selling  his  work  to  better 
advantage  elsewhere.2 

From  the  “ Correspondence  of  Prior  Eastry  ” we 
occasionally  get  some  gossiping  details  concerning  the 
occupants  of  the  archiepiscopal  see  which  are  not  to 
be  found  elsewhere.  Thus  a correspondent  writing 
to  the  Prior  shortly  before  the  death  of  Archbishop 
Peckham  says  that  the  Archbishop  has  grown  very 
morose  and  is  quite  unapproachable.  Moreover,  a 

1 The  inventory  has  been  printed  by  Messrs.  L egg  and  Hope  in 
“ Inventories  of  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,”  in  which  work  the 
list  fills  four  closely  printed  pages. 

2 “ Eastry  Correspondence,”  Canterbury  Archives,  iv.  R.  27  and  RR. 
400  (8). 

140 


PRIG  RATE  OF  HENRY  OF  E AST  RT 

report  is  abroad  that  he  hopes  to  be  made  a cardinal. 
Peckham,  however,  never  became  a member  of  the 
Sacred  College.  His  death  occurred  on  December  6, 
1292,  and  he  was  buried  in  the  transept  of  the 
Martyrdom,  where  his  fine  canopied  tomb  with  its 
effigy  in  bog-oak  still  remains  against  the  northern 
wall.  Of  his  successor,  the  saintly  Robert  Winchelsey, 
it  is  curious  to  learn  from  one  of  Eastry’s  correspond- 
ents that  in  later  life,  in  spite  of  his  asceticism  and 
the  many  hardships  he  had  endured  during  his  long 
struggle  with  King  Edward  I,  the  Archbishop  grew 
inordinately  stout  (valde  fonder osus).  Winchelsey’s 
boundless  charity  and  the  report  of  certain  miraculous 
circumstances  connected  with  his  body  after  death  at 
once  raised  him  to  saintship  in  popular  estimation,  and 
pilgrims  made  offerings  at  his  tomb.  In  1319  these 
amounted  to  no  less  than  .£90.  Winchelsey’s  popu- 
larity, however,  soon  waned,  and  the  offerings  had 
entirely  ceased  long  before  the  suppression  of  the 
monastery.  Nevertheless,  the  fact  that  his  tomb  had 
once  been  the  object  of  popular  veneration  doubtless 
led  to  its  destruction  when  Henry  VIII  issued  his 
edict  for  the  demolition  of  all  tombs  and  shrines  which 
had  been  “ abused  by  pilgrimages  and  offerings.” 
Towards  Walter  Reynolds  (the  third  archbishop 
enthroned  by  the  aged  Prior)  Eastry  acted  as  a sort 
of  mentor,  for  whenever  the  Archbishop  in  his  capacity 
as  statesman  found  himself  in  a difficulty  he  had 
recourse  to  his  friend  the  Prior,  whose  advice,  if  it  did 
not  betray  any  altruistic  principle,  was  probably  sound 
under  the  circumstances,  and  at  least  natural  to  one 
who  had  witnessed  many  political  crises,  and  had,  so 
to  speak,  seen  the  English  Constitution  grow  up  under 
his  eyes.  Thus  in  the  troublous  times  which  occurred 
towards  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Edward  II,  when 
Reynolds,  whose  character  was  weak  and  vacillating, 
hoped  to  get  a lead  from  the  old  Prior  as  to  the  attitude 
he  should  adopt  in  the  civil  strife,  the  latter  with 

H1 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

characteristic  caution  advised  him  not  to  commit 
himself  definitely  to  either  party — advice  which 
Reynolds  doubtless  found  quite  congenial  to  his 
temperament.  But  the  barbarous  murder  of  the  King, 
who  had  been  his  pupil  and  friend,  filled  the  Arch- 
bishop with  remorse,  and  is  said  to  have  hastened  his 
own  end,  for  his  death  occurred  on  November  16  in 
the  same  year  (1327). 

There  has  been  some  uncertainty  as  to  the  position 
of  Reynolds’  tomb.  The  recumbent  effigy  beneath 
the  westernmost  window  of  the  south  aisle  of  the  choir 
is  generally  believed  to  represent  him  ; but  in  his  will 
he  gave  instructions  for  his  burial  “ before  the  altars 
of  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary  and  St.  John  the  Evangelist, 
next  the  tomb  of  my  predecessor  R(obert  Winchelsey), 
beneath  the  pavement  (in  flana  terra),  either  at  the 
foot  or  head  of  the  said  tomb  according  as  the  said 
prior  may  direct.”  Winchelsey’s  tomb,  according  to 
Leland,  was  placed  against  “ the  butt  ende,”  or  south 
wall,  of  the  south-east  transept  ; and  Reynolds’  tomb 
may  have  been  destroyed  when  the  shrine  of  the 
former  prelate  was  swrept  away  in  the  time  of 
Henry  VIII. 

Amongst  the  benefactions  left  to  the  cathedral 
church  by  Archbishop  Reynolds  was  his  great  pontifical 
ring,  set  with  rubies  and  a large  oblong  emerald 
between  twelve  smaller  gems,  also  six  other  rings  set 
with  emeralds,  all  of  which  he  desired  might  be 
attached  to  the  apex  of  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas. 
But  a benefaction  far  better  calculated  to  keep  his 
memory  green  amongst  the  monks  of  Christ  Church 
was  the  gift  of  the  manor  of  Caldecote,  situated  on 
rising  ground  in  the  parish  of  St.  Martin  for  the  express 
purpose  that  it  might  serve  as  a sanatorium  to  which 
the  brethren  might  retire  during  convalescence,  or 
where  they  might  enjoy  a short  recess  after  those 
periodical  blood-lettings  which  all  through  the  middle 
ages  were  considered  indispensable  to  good  health. 

H2 


PRIORATE  OF  HENRT  OF  EASTRT 

During  Henry  of  Eastry’s  long  priorate  the  convent 
of  Christ  Church  was  frequently  honoured  by  the 
visits  of  royalty.  On  May  2,  1299,  King  Edward  I was 
married  to  his  second  consort,  Margaret  of  France,  at 
the  cloister  door  opening  into  the  “ martyrdom  ” tran- 
sept, the  royal  pair  subsequently  hearing  Mass  in  the 
chapel  of  St.  Thomas.  The  monastic  register  in  which 
the  account  of  the  marriage  is  enrolled  contains  also  a 
curious  account  of  a dispute  which  ensued  as  to  the 
ownership  of  the  canopy  which  during  the  ceremony 
was  held  over  the  heads  of  the  King  and  Queen.  This 
is  worthy  of  a passing  notice  for  the  light  it  throws 
upon  the  claim  constantly  put  forward  by  the  prior 
and  convent  of  Christ  Church  that  the  cathedral 
church  was  no  mere  appendage  of  the  archbishopric. 
Thus  to  the  Archbishop’s  contention  that  the  cloth 
belonged  to  him  by  right  of  his  office  the  Prior  replied 
that  he  could  claim  nothing  on  this  account  in  the 
mother-church  of  Canterbury,  because  the  church  of 
Canterbury  “ is  not  a chapel  of  the  archbishop,  but 
the  mother  of  all  other  churches  in  the  province  of 
Canterbury.”  Claims  were  also  put  in  by  the  Arch- 
bishop’s cross-bearer  and  by  the  king’s  chaplain,  and 
the  upshot  of  the  matter  was  that  the  king  gave 
orders  that  the  cloth  should  be  delivered  to  the  earl 
of  Lincoln  until  the  rights  of  the  disputants  could  be 
determined. 

Edward  II  came  to  Canterbury  in  1314  for  the 
enthronement  of  his  old  tutor  and  friend,  Walter 
Reynolds,  from  whom,  however,  he  received  but 
scant  support  in  the  dark  days  when  his  Queen  and 
people  turned  against  him.  Possibly  the  loyalty  of 
the  Archbishop  was  weakened  by  reports  which 
reached  him  through  the  Prior  of  Christ  Church  of 
the  mad  freaks  of  some  of  the  royal  favourites ; 
for  more  than  one  letter  in  the  “ Eastry  Correspon- 
dence ” refers  (in  somewhat  enigmatical  terms)  to 
the  extraordinary  conduct  of  the  younger  De  Spenser. 

H3 


C A N T E RBU RT  CATHEDRAL 

Queen  Isabella,  when  she  deserted  her  husband,  did 
the  Prior  the  doubtful  honour  of  leaving  her  pack  of 
hounds  on  his  hands.  After  maintaining  them  for 
more  than  two  years,  Eastry  began  to  grow  restive 
under  the  burden,  and  wrote  to  the  Archbishop  to 
know  how  he  could  rid  himself  of  it.  The  Archbishop’s 
reply  is  not  extant,  but  as  the  Prior  was  eighty-four 
years  of  age  at  the  time  he  can  hardly  have  advised 
him  to  carry  the  horn  himself.  When  nearly  ninety 
Eastry  felt  that  the  time  had  come  when  he  could  no 
longer  undertake  the  frequent  journeys  which  the 
business  of  the  convent  demanded,  and  he  obtained 
from  Edward  III,  who  was  in  Canterbury  from  June  14 
to  20,  1329,  permission  to  appoint  two  general 
proctors  who  might  represent  him  in  the  king’s  courts 
and  elsewhere.  Less  than  two  years  after  this — viz. 
on  April  3,  1331 — at  the  age  of  ninety-two,  he  passed 
away,  having  ruled  the  house  with  much  prudence  and 
success  for  nearly  forty-seven  years.  It  is  remarkable 
that  the  sepulchre  of  such  a distinguished  prior  cannot 
be  located.  In  one  of  the  Christ  Church  obituaries 
Eastry  is  said  to  have  been  buried  “ between  the 
pictures  of  St.  Osyth  and  St.  Apollonia,”  but  this  we 
fear  is  ignotum  per  ignotius.  Whatever  doubt  there 
may  be  about  Eastry’s  monument,  there  is  none  about 
the  compass  and  completeness  of  his  achievement ; 
and  this  is  his  imperishable  memorial  for  all  who  read 
the  story  of  the  monks  of  Canterbury.  He  seems  to 
have  been  one  of  those  rare  figures  of  men  providec 
with  a great  and  honourable  task,  and  perfectly 
equipped  to  fulfil  it.  He  was  happy  in  being  gifted 
with  strength  of  body,  capacity  of  mind,  persistence 
of  purpose,  singleness  of  aim,  and  length  of  life.  He 
was  also  jelix  opportunitate  mortis  ; for  we  are  told 
that  “ when  was  done  his  long  day’s  work  ” “ he  died 
at  the  time  of  high  mass.” 

C.  E.  W. 


H4 


o< 

» — i CxJ 
& 

P H pH 
0>H 

CO  K 


y un 

o ^ 
u M 

^ iz 
w 6 


Eg 

■£% 

£3 

0£ 

i— ^ o 

CO  CO 


CHAPTER  VIII 


FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  PRIOR  HENRY  OF  EASTRY  TO 
THE  ELECTION  OF  PRIOR  THOMAS  OF  CHILLENDEN 


I33I-I39I 


After  the  death  of  the  patriarch  Eastry  the  monks 
of  Christ  Church — perhaps  influenced  by  the  law  of 
contrasts — chose  for  their  prior  Richard  Oxenden,  who, 
as  he  only  made  his 
profession  some  eleven 
years  earlier,  can 
scarcely  have  been  more 
than  thirty  years  of  age 
at  the  time  of  his 
election.  His  rapid 
preferment  may  have 
been  due  to  the  fact 
that  he  was  a mem- 
ber of  an  influential 
East  Kent  family,1  but 
he  justified  the  choice 
of  the  brethren  by  his  Boss  in  “ Black  Prince's”  Chantry 

capacity  for  business, 

since  the  affairs  of  the  convent  prospered  greatly  under 
his  rule. 

Although  he  only  presided  over  the  house  for  nine 
years,  several  of  Oxenden’s  letters  have  been  pre- 
served, and  a perusal  of  them  leaves  the  impression 
that  the  young  Prior  was  a somewhat  grandiloquent 
person.  Thus,  when  in  some  petty  affray  a monk’s 


1 He  was  the  second  son  of  Solomon  de  Oxenden  of  Nonington,  an 
ancestor  of  the  Oxendens  of  Brome  in  Barham. 


K 


*45 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

nose  was  broken  in  the  churchyard,  Oxenden  solemnly 
informed  Archbishop  Stratford  that  “ the  face  of  his 
spouse  the  Church  has  been  besmirched,”  and  suggests 
that  the  “ befouled  precinct  ” must  be  reconciled 
with  due  ceremonial.  The  Archbishop  replied  that 
if  the  circumstances  should  prove  on  inquiry  to  be 
such  that  a formal  reconciliation  was  necessary,  the 
Bishop  of  Rochester  would  come  to  Canterbury  as  his 
representative,  but  took  the  opportunity  of  administer- 
ing a snub  to  the  Prior  for  writing  at  such  length  on 
so  trivial  a matter  ( non  cum,  debita  brevitate  sed  inutili 
verbositate). 

In  1333  the  Prior  and  convent  were  honoured  by 
a visit  from  King  Edward  III,  who  came  to  Canterbury 
with  Queen  Philippa,  Prince  Edward,  and  a numerous 
suite.  On  such  an  occasion  it  was,  of  course,  necessary 
to  make  presents  to  King,  Queen,  courtiers,  and 
retinue.  And  in  order  to  show  what  a heavy  tax 
these  royal  visits  were  upon  the  resources  of  the 
convent  we  give  below  a list  (taken  from  Prior 
Oxenden’s  day-book)  of  the  gifts  bestowed  by  the 
monks  upon  their  distinguished  guests  : 

To  King  Edward,  two  silver  bowls,  enamelled  in  the 
bottom,  valued  at  £9  3s.  ; two  silver  ewers  for  water, 
53s.  6d.  ; one  silver-gilt  cup  with  shields  in  enamel, 
which  had  once  belonged  to  Hamo  de  Chikwell,  citizen 
of  London,  and  which  had  been  given  by  him  to 
Prior  Richard,  100s.  ; a silver  flask  for  wine,  which 
formerly  belonged  to  Prior  Henry,  53s.  ; a palfrey, 
valued  at  £20. 

To  Queen  Philippa,  two  silver  bowls,  enamelled  in 
the  bottom,  worth  £j  10s.  nd.,  with  two  buckles 
placed  inside  them,  70s.  ; two  silver  wine  flasks, 
107s.  4d.  ; one  pony  ( parvum  equum ),  the  value  of 
which  is  not  stated. 

To  the  young  Prince  Edward  of  Woodstock  (after- 
wards known  as  the  Black  Prince),  then  only  three 
years  old,  an  alabaster  cup,  worth  6s. 

146 


FROM  E A S T RT  TO  CHILLEN  DEN 

To  Henry  of  Lancaster  and  the  Earl  of  Arundel 
each  a silver  cup  and  buckles.  To  the  ladies  of  the 
Queen’s  suite,  jewels,  silk,  and  gloves.  The  total 
value  reached  the  enormous  sum  of  £iog  16s.,  equiva- 
lent to  more  than  £ 2000  at  the  present  day.  Of 
course,  in  addition  to  all  this  there  was  the  expense  of 
entertainment  ; so  that  the  King’s  offering  of  .£10  and 
the  Queen’s  of  five  marks  at  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas 
did  not  greatly  enrich  the  coffers  of  the  monastery. 

The  only  addition  to  the  fabric  of  the  cathedral 
church  that  is  connected  with  the  name  of  Prior 
Oxenden  is  the  large  decorated  window  of  five  lights 
which  was  inserted  in  the  south  wall  of  St.  Anselm’s 
Chapel  in  1336.  It  would  appear  that  the  window 
was  a memorial  to  Archbishop  Meopham,  who  had 
been  buried  at  the  entrance  of  the  chapel  two 
years  previously,  since  part  of  the  cost  was  defrayed 
by  his  friends  and  the  balance  by  Prior  Oxenden 
himself.  This  fine  decorated  window — the  only  one, 
by  the  way,  which  Canterbury  Cathedral  can  boast — 
was  very  badly  treated  by  the  “ restorers  ” of  the  first 
half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  who  pared  down  its 
tracery  to  the  glass  and  inserted  Portland-stone 
monials,  so  that  when  Professor  Willis  saw  it  the 
window  “ had  a most  ungenuine  air.”  More  recently, 
however,  it  has  been  subjected  to  a second  and  more 
judicious  restoration,  whereby  it  has  recovered  much 
of  its  original  beauty. 

Prior  Oxenden  died  on  August  4,  1338,  and  was 
buried  in  St.  Michael’s  Chapel,  but  no  memorial  of 
him  is  now  extant. 

His  successor,  Robert  Hathbrand,  ruled  the  house 
for  nearly  thirty-two  years,  and  was  a man  of  con- 
siderable mark.  His  personal  piety  was  great,  for  it 
is  recorded  in  his  obituary  that  he  never  celebrated 
Mass  without  shedding  tears  ; but  he  was  also  a 
man  of  affairs,  and  an  influential  person  at  Court.1 

1 “ Tunc  venit  ille  famosissimus  dominus  et  duorum  filiorum  Regis 

H7 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

So  highly  was  he  esteemed  by  King  Edward  III  that 
two  of  the  young  princes  were  entrusted  to  his  care. 
Their  names  are  not  recorded,  but  possibly  Edward 
of  Woodstock  may  have  been  one  of  them  ; and  if  so, 
the  desire  of  the  “ Black  Prince  ” to  be  buried  within 
the  walls  of  the  metropolitical  church  may  possibly 
have  been  due  partly  to  his  early  connection  with 
Christ  Church  and  its  prior. 

Hathbrand’s  lot  was  cast  in  troublous  times,  for 
not  only  was  the  country  struggling  under  the 
burden  of  the  great  French  war,  in  support  of  which 
the  convent  was  continually  paying  subsidies  and 
tenths,  but  the  period  was  also  coincident  with  the 
most  virulent  outbreaks  of  the  Black  Death,  that 
terrible  scourge  from  which  throughout  the  middle 
ages  England  was  seldom  quite  free.  In  1348  Arch- 
bishop Stratford  died  at  his  manor-house  at  Mayfield 
in  Sussex,  perhaps  not  of  plague.  But  the  fell  disease 
carried  off  the  next  two  Primates  in  quick  succession 
— John  de  Ufford  on  May  20  in  the  following  year, 
before  he  could  be  enthroned,  and  his  successor,  the 
learned  Thomas  Bradwardine,  a few  months  later.  In 
some  parts  of  the  country  the  insanitary  condition 
and  overcrowded  state  of  the  monasteries  were  so 
favourable  to  the  spread  of  the  epidemic  that  their 
inmates  were  practically  exterminated.  It  is  there- 
fore a high  testimony  to  the  excellence  of  the  drainage 
system  and  water-supply  provided  by  Prior  Wibert  to 
learn  that  the  monks  of  Christ  Church  enjoyed  a 
comparative  immunity,  since  only  four  deaths  from 
plague  occurred  in  the  cloister  in  the  year  when  the 
scourge  was  at  its  worst.  The  tenants  and  villeins  on 
the  monastic  estates,  however,  suffered  severely,  and 
the  scarcity  of  labour  which  followed  the  outbreak 

alumpnus,  Regi  et  proceribus  regni  acceptissimus  dominus  Robertus 
Hadbrand.”  “ Monastic  Chronicle  of  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,” 
ed.  by  C.  Eveleigh  Woodruff,  Arehaologia  Cantiana , vol.  xxix. 
p.  10. 

148 


The  Table-Hall  of  the  Infirmary,  c.  1342 


FROM  E AST  RT  TO  CHILLEN DEN 

produced  economic  changes  which  had  a very  far- 
reaching  effect  upon  the  finances  of  the  priory.  But 
the  offerings  at  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas — that  sheet- 
anchor  of  Canterbury  finance — saved  the  situation  ; 
for  in  the  year  1350,  when  the  danger  of  infection 
must  still  have  been  very  great,  the  pilgrims  continued 
to  find  their  way  to  Canterbury,  and  in  such  numbers 
that  the  offerings  in  that  year  amounted  to  more  than 
eight  hundred  pounds.  Hence,  in  spite  of  a diminish- 
ing rent-roll,  the  convent  was  able  to  undertake  some 
important  building  operations  during  Hathbrand’s 
priorate.  The  earliest  of  which  we  have  any  record  was 
the  erection  of  a new  refectorium , or  frater- house,  in 
the  infirmary.  This  apartment,  which  was  called  by  the 
monks  Mens  a Magistri , or  the  Table-Hall,  has  happily 
escaped  destruction  and  still  forms  part  of  the  prebendal 
house  nearest  to  the  deanery.  It  measures  37  ft.  by  27 
ft.  internally,  and  retains  its  tiled  roof  of  high  pitch  and 
the  original  windows  in  the  east  and  north  walls,  which 
are  built  of  squared  flints.  Somner,  on  the  authority 
of  an  entry  in  the  treasurer’s  accounts  (which,  how- 
ever, are  no  longer  extant  for  this  period),  says  that 
the  “ Table-Hall  was  built  in  1342-43.  It  was  in- 
tended to  serve  as  the  dining-room  for  monks  who 
were  sufficiently  convalescent  to  leave  their  chambers 
in  the  infirmary. 

Another  piece  of  work,  carried  out  probably  about 
the  same  time  as  the  above,  but  of  which  no  docu- 
mentary evidence  remains,  was  the  remodelling  of  the 
chancel  of  the  infirmary  chapel.  Here  Hathbrand’s 
work  comprised  the  relining  of  the  walls  of  the  chancel, 
the  erection  of  a new  chancel  arch,  and  the  insertion  of 
fourteenth-century  windows.  The  great  east  window 
was  formerly  of  five  lights,  but  its  tracery  has  gone. 
That  in  the  northern  wall  of  the  chancel,  however,  still 
retains  its  tracery,  which  shows  a mixture  of  geometric 
and  flowing  lines  characteristic  of  the  style  prevalent 
towards  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century. 


iSi 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Of  the  great  monastic  kitchen  rebuilt  by  Prior 
Hathbrand  only  a few  fragments  remain  in  the  garden  of 
the  house  now  occupied  by  the  Bishop  of  Dover.  But 
these  were  sufficient  to  enable  the  keen  eye  of  Professor 
Willis  to  recover  the  plan  of  the  building.  “ It  was,” 
he  says,  “ built  in  the  form  of  a square  of  forty-seven 
feet,  with  arches  cutting  off  the  angles  so  as  to  sustain  an 
octagonal  roof.”  In  plan  it  resembled  very  closely  the 
monastic  kitchen  at  Glastonbury,  but  was  considerably 
larger,  since  the  latter  is  but  thirty-five  feet  square. 

Within  the  church  itself  a very  beautiful  and  delicate 
piece  of  work  was  carried  out  in  the  crypt  in  1363.  In 
this  year  Prince  Edward,  being  desirous  of  performing 
some  act  of  piety  in  return  for  the  papal  dispensation 
which  enabled  him  to  marry  his  fair  cousin,  Joan 
Plantagenet,  obtained  permission  to  found  a chantry 
chapel  in  that  part  of  the  undercroft  which  lies  beneath 
the  south-eastern  transept  of  the  cathedral.  From 
the  terms  of  the  foundation  charter 1 we  learn  that  the 
Prince  was  induced  to  found  his  chantry  at  Canterbury 
because  from  his  earliest  years  he  had  cherished  a 
peculiar  affection  for  the  metropolitical  church — an 
expression  which  may  perhaps  be  taken  as  further 
confirmation  of  the  conjecture  already  hazarded  that 
in  his  early  childhood  he  had  been  placed  under  the 
tutelage  of  Prior  Hathbrand.  By  the  foundation  deed 
it  was  ordained  that  the  chantry  should  contain  two 
altars,  dedicated  respectively  to  the  Holy  Trinity  and 
St.  Mary  the  Virgin,  to  each  of  which  a priest  was 
attached.  In  addition  to  the  daily  Mass  which  the 
priests  were  to  say  each  at  his  own  altar,  but  not 
simultaneously,  the  canonical  hours  were  to  be  recited 
by  the  two  chaplains  together  at  the  altar  of  the 
Holy  Trinity.  Further,  they  were  to  lodge  and  keep 
“ a common  table  ” in  a house  provided  for  their 
use  in  the  parish  of  St.  Alphege.  It  is  sad  to  relate 
that  the  latter  arrangement  did  not  work  well,  for 

1 Register  B.  f.  2.  It  is  printed  in  full  in  Stanley’s  “ Memorials.” 
152 


Ruins  of  the  Chancel  of  the  Infirmary  Cha-pel 


FROM  E ASF RT  TO  CHI LLENDEN 


the  monastic  annals  record  that  the  priests  quarrelled 
so  badly  that  the  prior  and  chapter  found  it  necessary 
to  bind  them  over  “ to  restrain  their  tongues  from 
unclean  language  and  from  shameful  words.”  It  is 
also  somewhat  curious  to  learn  that,  although  the 
Prince  endowed  his  chantry  with  the  profits  of  his 
manor  at  Vauxhall,  the 
revenue  at  a later  date  - — - - 

was  insufficient  for  the 


the  relinquishment  of  the  ^ Jorth  Window  of  the  InfirntaTy  Chapel 
trust,  for  the  manor  of 

Vauxhall  remained  part  of  the  possession  of  Christ 
Church,  and,  till  taken  over  by  the  Ecclesiastical 
Commission  in  the  nineteenth  century,  was  one  of  its 
most  profitable  estates. 

What  happened  to  the  Prince’s  chantry  at  the 
time  of  the  suppression  of  the  priory  is  best  told  in 
the  words  of  the  poor  chaplain  who  survived  the 
debacle.  In  reply  to  the  Commissioners  of  King 
Edward  VI  he  deposed  as  follows  : “ As  to  the  plate 
and  vestments,  there  were  but  two  chalices  to  both 
the  altars,  the  value  of  which,  I think,  was  not  above 


purposes  of  the  trust. 
Thus,  in  1472,  the  Prior 
and  Chapter  suggested 
to  Archbishop  Bourchier 
that  the  manor  should  be 
made  over  to  the  chantry 
priests  “ to  find  them- 
selves therewith,  we 
being  only  bound  to  find 
the  said  priests  both  wax 
and  bread  and  wine, 
nothing  reserving  unto 
us  of  the  said  manor.” 
It  would  appear,  how- 
ever, that  the  Arch- 
bishop did  not  sanction 


I5S 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

£ 6 ; the  best  of  them  was  stolen  before  the  dissolution 
of  the  house,  and  the  other  was  delivered  to  the  con- 
vent with  the  vestments  and  altar  cloths  and  books 
pertaining  to  the  altar.”  He  also  said  that,  as  far  as 
he  knew,  the  land  with  which  the  chantry  was  endowed 
came  into  the  King’s  hands,  but  that  the  house  in 
St.  Alphege,  “ now  sore  decayed,”  remained  in  the 
hands  of  the  chaplains  until  the  last  Parliament. 
“ This  twenty-two  years  it  hath  been  part  of  my 
living.  I trust  his  Grace  will  excuse  my  age  and 
impotency.”  1 

But  to  revert  to  the  architectural  history  of  the 
chantry.  At  the  Prince’s  expense,  the  whole  of  the 
pillars,  walls,  and  vaulted  roof  were  clothed  with 
masonry  exquisitely  wrought  in  the  style  of  the  period. 
The  central  pillar  is  encircled  with  eight  little  round 
shafts  ; the  vaulting  arches  are  pointed  and  shafted  ; 
the  lierne  vault  has  numerous  well-moulded  transverse 
ribs,  and  carved  bosses,  originally  coloured  and  gilt, 
adorn  the  points  at  which  they  intersect.  That  in  the 
centre  of  the  western  bay  of  the  northern  chantry 
assumes  the  form  of  a lady’s  face  with  a nebule  head- 
dress, which  popular  tradition  identifies  as  a repre- 
sentation of  the  Fair  Maid  of  Kent,  though  it  must 
be  confessed  that  the  features  portrayed  seem  scarcely 
to  warrant  such  a supposition. 

The  central  boss  of  the  bay  next  eastwards  bears  the 
armorial  coat  of  the  Prince,  and  on  the  large  boss  over 
the  place  where  the  altar  of  the  Holy  Trinity  stood 
there  is  an  admirably  carved  nude  figure  of  Samson. 
The  hair  of  the  head  is  carefully  emphasised,  and 
beneath  the  right  arm  appears  the  long-eared  head  of 
an  ass — which  was  perhaps  the  only  way  in  which 
the  sculptor  could  convey  to  the  spectator’s  mind  the 
central  fact  of  the  scriptural  incident  that  Samson 
slew  a thousand  Philistines  with  the  jaw-bone  of  an 
ass.  This  figure  has  been  taken  as  an  allusion  to  the 
1 Cart.  Antique,  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,  C.  l6. 


156 


FROM  E AST  RY  TO  CHILLENDEN 


battle  of  Poitiers,  where  the  heaps  of  dead  bodies  in 
the  lane  on  the  battlefield  might  well  recall  the  words 
of  the  scriptural  story : “ And.  Samson  said,  With  the 
jaw-bone  of  an  ass,  heaps  upon  heaps,  with  the  jaw- 
bone of  an  ass  have  I slain  a thousand  men.”  1 The 
chantry  now  forms  the  meeting-place  of  the  French 
Protestant  congregation. 

It  would  seem,  however,  that  Prince  Edward’s 
munificence  was  not 


chapel  occupied  the 

three  eastern  bays  of  the  central  alley.  The  new  chapel, 
erected  when  Hathbrand  was  Prior,  was  much  smaller, 
but  its  lack  of  size  was  compensated  by  the  extreme 
richness  of  its  ornamentation.  The  lateral  screens  of 
pierced  stonework,  and  the  reredos  with  its  tall  central 
niche  for  the  image  of  the  Virgin,  and  the  pedestals 
for  the  figures  of  attendant  saints,  though  grievously 
mutilated,  are  still  of  surpassing  grace  and  beauty. 
Abundant  evidence  still  remains  of  the  gilding  and 
colour  which  once  adorned  the  stonework,  and  we 
can  well  imagine  that  when  the  lighted  tapers  of 
the  silver  candelabra  and  pendent  lamps  reflected 
the  rays  of  the  burnished  suns  and  stars  with  which 
1 W.  A.  Scott-Robertson  in  Archceologia  Cantiana , vol.  xiii.  p.  543. 


exhausted  by  the  erec- 
tion of  these  chantries, 
but  that  it  extended 
to  the  transformation 
of  the  little  chapel  of 
St.  Mary  in  the  crypt, 
where  he  desired  to  be 
buried  and  to  which 
he  made  several  very 
valuable  bequests.  The 
whole  of  the  crypt  was 
originally  dedicated  to 
the  Blessed  Virgin,  but 
in  Ernulf’s  church  her 


Boss  of  Joan  Plantagenet 


is  7 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

the  blue  vault  of  the  roof  was  studded,  this  little 
chapel  was  one  of  the  show-places  of  the  church.  The 
whole  was  enclosed  within  a strong  grille  of  ironwork, 
inside  of  which  only  specially  favoured  persons  might 
come.  Erasmus,  who  had  brougn.  ^ith  him  a letter 
of  introduction  from  Archbishop  Wirham,  was  one 
of  the  favoured  few.  “ Here  [in  the  crypt],”  he 
writes,  “ the  Virgin  hath  an  habitation,  but  some- 
what dark,  enclosed  within  a double  sept,  or  rail  of 
iron,  for  fear  of  thieves ; for  indeed  I never  saw  a 
thing  more  laden  with  riches.  . . . Light  being 
brought,  we  saw  a more  than  royal  spectacle;  in 
beauty  it  far  surpassed  that  of  Walsingham.” 

The  daily  mass  in  the  Chapel  of  “ Our  Lady  of  the 
undercroft  ” was  said  in  turn  by  those  of  the  monks 
who  were  in  priest’s  orders,  each  receiving  for  his  pains 
a fee  of  twopence  from  the  warden  of  the  chapel,  an 
unfortunate  officer  who  seems  to  have  spent  most  of 
his  time  in  the  gloom  of  the  crypt,  where  an  apartment 
was  fitted  up  for  his  use.1 

When  the  crypt  was  restored  about  twenty  years 
ago,  a stratum  of  gravel  and  rubbish  of  sufficient 
thickness  to  hide  the  bases  of  Ernulf’s  columns  was 
removed  from  the  floor.  It  was  then  found  that  the 
Lady  Chapel  was  built,  not  upon  the  original  floor, 
but  upon  this  subsequent  deposit.  So  that  this 
raising  of  the  level  must  have  been  carried  out  before 
the  last  quarter  of  the  fourteenth  century. 

It  would  seem  that  the  condition  of  the  nave  of 
the  church  was  causing  anxiety  even  in  Hathbrand’s 
time,  for  in  the  last  year  of  his  life  a subscription 
list  was  opened  for  its  rebuilding.  The  list  is  still 
preserved  amongst  the  Chapter  archives,  and  contains 
thirty-four  names,  headed  by  that  of  John  Beke- 
nore,  who  gave  twenty  pounds,  the  total  amounting 

1 “ To  the  carpenter  for  work  done  in  my  chamber  in  the  crypt, 
3d.”  “ For  a painted  cloth  for  my  chamber  in  the  crypt,  2od.”  “The 
Accounts  of  Dom  Thomas  Anselm,”  warden  of  the  chapel  in  1509. 

158 


FROM  EASTRT  TO  CHILLENDEN 

to  ^44  7s.  1 id.  The  death  of  the  Prior,  however,  pre- 
vented the  furtherance  of  the  work  at  the  time,  for 
Hathbrand  died  July  16,  1370,  and,  like  his  prede- 
cessor, was  buried  in  the  chapel  of  St.  Michael. 

No  further  additions  to  the  fabric  are  recorded  in 
the  days  of  the  two  next  Priors,  Richard  Gillingham 
(1370-76)  and  Stephen  Mongeham  (1376-77) ; but  the 
single  year  of  office  of  the  latter  Prior  was  marked  by 
an  event  of  great  importance  in  the  annals  of  the 
church  of  Canterbury — namely,  the  funeral  of  the 
Black  Prince. 

In  spite  of  the  specific  instructions  contained  in  the 
Prince’s  will  that  his  body  should  be  buried  “ in  the 
Chapel  of  Our  Lady  in  the  undercroft,  at  a distance  of 
ten  feet  from  the  altar,”  public  opinion  could  not 
allow  the  nation’s  darling  to  be  hidden  away  in  so 
obscure  a spot.  Hence  it  came  about  that  when 
(nearly  four  months  after  his  death)  the  body  of  Prince 
Edward  was  at  length  brought  to  Canterbury  for 
interment,  it  was  laid  to  rest  in  the  most  honourable 
place  the  church  could  offer,  viz.  on  the  south  side 
of  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas.  The  funeral,  which 
must  have  been  one  of  the  most  impressive  pageants 
ever  witnessed  even  at  Canterbury,  took  place  on 
Michaelmas  Day  1376.  During  the  requiem  mass, 
at  which  Archbishop  Simon  of  Sudbury  officiated, 
assisted  by  William  Courtenay,  bishop  of  London,  and 
Prior  Mongeham,  the  body  of  the  hero  was  placed 
upon  a magnificent  catafalque  erected  before  the  high 
altar,  whence  it  was  carried  to  its  last  resting-place 
in  the  retro-choir. 

The  Black  Prince’s  tomb,  though  it  has  lost  much  of 
the  bright  colouring  and  gilding  which  once  adorned  it, 
has  never  been  wantonly  defaced,  and  is  still  one  of  the 
most  splendid  monumental  memorials  in  the  kingdom. 

The  sides  of  the  tomb  are  of  Purbeck  marble, 
adorned  with  enamelled  shields  of  arms,  the  ostrich 
feathers  (which  the  Prince  derived  from  the  family  of 

159 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

his  mother,  Philippa  of  Hainault),  bearing  labels 
inscribed  with  the  words  Houmont  and  Ich  diene , the 
exact  meaning  of  which  we  will  not  attempt  to 
determine.  The  top  is  surmounted  by  a latten  table 
carrying  a life-sized  effigy  cast  in  the  same  metal. 
The  Prince  is  represented  in  full  armour,  in  accordance 
with  the  directions  of  his  will ; and  his  face,  which 
exhibits  the  clear-cut  features  of  the  Plantagenets,  is 
doubtless  a portrait.  Around  the  edge  of  the 
table  is  a long  inscription  in  French,  placed  there  in 
accordance  with  the  express  instructions  contained  in 
the  Prince’s  will.  The  lines,  which,  according  to 
Stanley  (who  has  given  a copy  of  them  in  his 
“ Memorials  ”),  are  borrowed,  with  a few  variations, 
from  the  anonymous  French  translation  of  the 
Cleric alis  Disciplina  of  Petrus  Alphonsus,  com- 
posed between  the  years  1106  and  mo,  have  been 
translated,  or  rather  paraphrased,  thus  : 

Wanderer,  where  this  dust  reclines, 

Restored  to  kindred  dust  again, 

Know  that  the  tomb  which  bears  these  lines 
Sanctions  the  monitory  strain  ; 

Connected  by  an  equal  fate, 

In  mine  behold  thy  funeral  state. 

Heedless  of  death  I lived  my  hour, 

As  though  this  transient  life  could  last ; 

Revel’d  in  riches  and  in  power, 

In  honour’s  high  enrolment  cast ; 

The  trappings  of  the  princely  great 
Gave  lustre  to  my  earthly  state. 

Now,  poor,  beneath  contempt  I lie 
And  close  concealed  from  every  eye, 

My  beauty  changed  to  loathsomeness, 

My  frame  all  shrunk  to  rottenness. 

Narrow  and  mean  my  mansion  now, 

My  tongue  a silent  lecture  holds ; 

Couldst  thou  explore  what  lies  below 
The  poor  remains  the  tomb  enfolds, 

Among  the  dust  which  feeds  the  worm 
Thou’dst  vainly  seek  the  human  form. 

160 


The  Black  Prince's  Tomb 


FROM  EASTRT  TO  CHILLENDEN 

Then  God  implore,  th’  eternal  King, 

That  mercy  on  my  soul  be  shown  ; 

So  may  His  grace  on  seraph  wing 
Descend  and  purify  thy  own. 

When  time  is  past  then  be  it  given 

To  thee  to  taste  the  joys  of  heaven.3 

Above  the  tomb,  extending  from  pillar  to  pillar,  is 
hung  a flat  wooden  canopy  or  tester,  on  the  under- 
side of  which  is  painted  an  anthropomorphic  repre- 
sentation of  the  Holy  Trinity,  now  much  defaced.1 2 
Upon  the  beam  from  which  the  canopy  is  suspended 
are  now  placed  the  achievements  of  the  Prince,  but 
from  the  view  of  the  tomb  given  by  Dart 3 it  would 
appear  that  these  were  formerly  hung  upon  an  iron 
rod  above  the  beam.  The  objects  now  displayed  are 
the  helm,  crest,  jupon  or  coat-of-arms,  gauntlets, 
shield,  sword-sheath,  and  part  of  a belt  with  a buckle, 
but  the  sword  has  disappeared  together  with  the 
dagger  and  target  which  once  had  a place  here. 
Tradition  affirms  that  the  sword  was  taken  away  by 
Oliver  Cromwell,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
great  Protector  was  ever  in  Canterbury.  It  was 
certainly  in  its  place  in  1580,  since  in  that  year  i6d. 
was  paid  to  the  sub-sacristan  for  cleaning  it ; 4 but  how 
much  longer  it  remained  with  the  other  relics  we  have 
been  unable  to  discover.  Though  of  great  value  as 
specimens  of  fourteenth-century  work,  competent 
authorities  are  of  opinion  that  none  of  these  achieve- 
ments were  ever  actually  worn  by  the  Prince  in  his 
lifetime,  but  were  specially  made  to  figure  in  his 
obsequies.  A minute  description  of  them  from  the 
pen  of  Mr.  W.  H.  St.  John  Hope,  accompanied  by  a 

1 Woolnoth’s  “ Canterbury,”  p.  89. 

2 A drawing  of  the  picture  is  given  in  Stanley’s  “ Memorials.” 

3 “ History  and  Antiquities  of  the  Cathedral  Church  of  Canterbury,” 
1726,  p.  82. 

4 “ Johanni  Harte  pro  coruscacione  gladii  pendentis  super  tumulum 
principis  Edwardi  tercii  \sic\  voc’  the  black  prynce  xvid.”  Treasurer's 
Accounts , 1580. 

L l6l 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

set  of  magnificent  plates,  was  published  by  the  Society 
of  Antiquaries  of  London  in  1895.1 

Prince  Edward’s  bequests  to  Christ  Church 
comprised  : “ A vestment  [that  is,  complete  suit]  of 
green  velvet  embroidered  with  gold  ; two  basons  of 
gold  ; a chalice  of  gold  with  his  arms  on  the  foot,  and 
the  paten  thereto  ; two  cruets  of  gold  ; an  image  of 
the  Holy  Trinity,  and  his  best  cross  of  silver-gilt 
enamelled.”  To  the  altar  of  Our  Lady  of  the  Under- 
croft, before  which  he  desired  to  be  buried,  he  left 
a whole  white  suit  diapered  with  a blue  vine  ; a frontal 
which  had  been  given  him  by  the  Bishop  of  Exeter, 
having  the  Assumption  of  Our  Lady  in  the  midst  of 
other  imagery  ; and  a tabernacle  of  the  same  subject, 
the  gift  of  the  said  bishop  ; also  his  two  great  twisted 
candlesticks  ; two  basons  with  his  arms  ; a great  gilt 
and  enamelled  chalice  with  the  arms  of  Warenne  ; two 
cruets  wrought  in  the  form  of  angels ; a set  of  tapestry 
hangings,  including  two  bankers  or  bench  coverings  of 
ostrich  feathers  on  black  tapestry  having  a red  border 
and  embroidered  with  swans  with  ladies’  heads.  The 
dosser  (or  end  piece)  was  to  be  cut  up  for  making  frontals 
for  the  several  altars  of  St.  Thomas — viz.  that  at  the 
head  of  his  shrine  ; in  the  corona  ; at  the  altar  of  the 
Sword  Point ; and,  if  sufficient  remained,  for  hangings 
round  the  saint’s  tomb  in  the  crypt.  The  eight 
costers  (or  side  pieces)  were  to  be  hung  on  the  side 
screens  of  the  choir  above  the  stalls  on  all  principal 
feast-days  and  on  the  anniversary  of  the  Prince’s 
death.  Some  of  the  banker  pieces  seem  to  have 
survived  until  1540,  since  the  inventory  taken  in 
that  year  mentions  one  old  hanging  of  “ vi  peces 
of  ostriche  fethers  to  laye  on  the  ground  on  Palm 
Sunday.2 

But  to  revert  to  the  general  history  of  the  fabric  of 

3 Vetusta  Monumenta , vol.  vii.  Part  I. 

2 “ Inventories  of  ChristChurch,  Canterbury,”  by  Messrs.  J.  Wickham 
Legg  and  W.  H.  St.  John  Hope,  p.  96.  Westminster,  1902. 

162 


FROM  EASTRT  TO  CHILLEN  DEN 

the  church.  The  rebuilding  the  nave  which  had  been 
contemplated  by  Prior  Hathbrand  was  postponed  after 
his  death  for  seven  years.  In  1377,  when  Simon 
Sudbury  was  Archbishop  and  John  Finch  was  Prior, 
the  financial  position  of  the  priory  had  so  much 
improved  that  the  work  was  put  in  hand.  It  was 
clear,  however,  that  to  demolish  the  old  Norman 
nave  and  erect  a new  one  in  its  place  would  be  a 
stupendous  task,  and  one  which  could  not  be  carried 
out  by  the  unaided  resources  of  the  monks  of  Christ 
Church.  Accordingly  the  Archbishop  issued  a brief 
inviting  subscriptions  to  the  building  fund,  and  offered 
an  indulgence  of  forty  days  to  all  good  people  who 
would  contribute  to  the  work.  To  what  extent  the 
appeal  was  successful  we  do  not  know  ; but  whatever 
sum  was  obtained  in  this  way  was  supplemented  by  a 
munificent  donation  of  three  thousand  marks  from 
the  Archbishop  himself.  The  Norman  nave,  which 
was  in  a ruinous  condition,  was  now  pulled  down  ; 
but  the  towers  were  left  standing,  and  the  transepts, 
in  order  to  give  stability  to  the  central  tower.  That 
the  two  western  towers  might  receive  immediate 
support,  the  work  of  rebuilding  was  commenced 
at  the  western  end ; but  before  much  pro- 

gress had  been  made  Sudbury’s  career  was  cut 
short  by  the  rebels  on  Tower  Hill.  The  followers 
of  Wat  Tyler  had  paid  a visit  to  Canterbury 
on  June  10,  1381,  and  had  broken  open  the 

castle  and  plundered  the  palace  of  the  Archbishop. 
Sudbury  (who  was  in  London  at  the  time), 
knowing  that  as  Chancellor  he  was  held  by  the 
insurgents  to  be  responsible  for  the  obnoxious  poll- 
tax,  took  refuge  in  the  Tower.  The  rebels,  however, 
effected  an  entrance  and  beheaded  the  unfortunate 
prelate.  His  headless  body  was  brought  to  Canterbury 
for  interment,  and  received  honourable  sepulture 
on  the  south  side  of  the  presbytery,  where  his  fine 
canopied  tomb  may  still  be  seen.  Thither  the  mayor 

163 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

and  aldermen  of  the  city  were  wont  to  go  in  procession 
every  Christmas  Day  to  pray  for  the  soul  of  the 
benefactor  who  had  rebuilt  the  walls  and  the  great 
West-gate  of  their  city.  But  although  Sudbury’s  name 
was  inserted  on  the  bede-roll  of  the  monastery,  and  a 
money-box  for  offerings  was  placed  upon  his  tomb,  the 
monks  of  Christ  Church — perhaps  from  the  fact  that 
he  had  once  had  the  temerity  to  cast  doubt  upon  the 
efficacy  of  pilgrimages  to  the  shrine  of  Canterbury’s 
most  famous  saint — seem  never  to  have  cherished 
his  memory  with  much  warmth. 

Ten  years  elapsed  between  the  death  of  Archbishop 
Sudbury  and  that  of  Prior  Finch,  and  there  is  some 
evidence  to  show  that  during  these  years  very  con- 
siderable progress  was  made  in  the  work  of  rebuilding 
the  nave.  Thus,  when  Archbishop  Courtenay  in  1390 
entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  prior  and  convent 
with  regard  to  the  perpetuation  of  his  memory  in 
the  services  of  the  cathedral  church,  amongst  his 
good  deeds  meriting  recognition  special  mention  was 
made  of  a gift  of  twenty  pounds  towards  a new 
window  in  the  nave  in  honour  of  St.  Alphege.  The 
same  document  records  that  the  Archbishop  had  been 
very  active  in  collecting  funds  for  the  work,  and  had 
been  successful  in  raising  one  thousand  marks  “ from 
King  Richard  and  other  friends  ” ( Ricardo  illustrissimo 
rege  Anglie  et  aliis  amicis). 

The  architectural  style  adopted  in  the  new  nave 
was  something  entirely  fresh  in  the  south-east  of 
England.  In  the  first  half  of  the  fourteenth  century 
Kent  had  evolved  a very  pleasing  variety  of  the  style 
known  as  decorated , but  the  local  guilds  of  craftsmen 
had  been  broken  up  by  the  ravages  of  the  Black  Death, 
and  by  the  end  of  the  century  the  traditions  of  their 
art  had  been  lost.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  larger 
towns  new  associations  were  being  formed,  and  a 
new  style  was  being  evolved  which  from  its  cheap 
effectiveness  and  its  adaptability  to  all  requirements 
164 


FROM  E A ST  RT  TO  CHILLENDEN 

was  destined  to  become  stereotyped  in  this  country 
for  more  than  two  centuries. 

This  style,  which  has  been  named  the  Early  Perpen- 
dicular, found  its  earliest  expression  in  the  south-east 
of  England  in  the  nave  of  Canterbury  Cathedral ; but 
it  had  been  adopted  nearly  fifty  years  earlier  at 
Gloucester,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
architect  who  designed  the  Canterbury  nave  had  been 
trained  in  the  Gloucester  school  of  masons.1 

A notable  addition  to  the  conventual  buildings 
during  Finch’s  priorate  was  the  erection  of  a set  of 
new  guest-chambers  adjoining  the  gatehouse  of  the 
cellarer’s  hall.  The  monks  were  so  pleased  with  these 
apartments  that  they  called  one  of  them  Paradise  and 
another  Heaven . They  still  form  part  of  the  prebendal 
house  in  the  south-western  corner  of  the  Green  Court, 
and  are  still  known  by  their  old  names. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  convent  suffered  one  con- 
siderable loss  during  Finch’s  days,  namely,  the  fall  of 
the  campanile  or  bell-tower,  on  the  south  side  of  the 
cemetery  of  the  lay  folk.  The  destruction  of  the 
campanile , which  dated  probably  from  the  days  of 
Lanfranc,  was  caused  by  an  earthquake  which  occurred 
on  May  21,  1382 — the  very  day  on  which  the  doctrines 
of  Wyclif  were  condemned  by  a Council  held  at  the 
Blackfriars  in  London,  a coincidence  which,  of  course, 
admitted  of  and  found  more  than  one  interpre- 
tation. 

Prior  Finch  died  January  25,  1391,  and  was  buried 
in  the  Martyrdom,  where  his  flat  ledger-stone — from 
which  the  effigy  of  brass  has  been  stripped — may  still 
be  seen.  He  appears  to  have  been  a man  of  saintly 
life,  but  was  perhaps  not  a good  man  of  business,  since 
an  anonymous  Christ  Church  chronicler  describes  him 
as  a “ man  of  clean  hands  and  pure  heart,  who  wisely 
depended  more  on  the  power  of  prayer  and  the  worldly 
wisdom  of  his  brother-monks,  William  Woghope  and 
1 See  Prior’s  “ Cathedral  Builders,”  p.  85. 

165 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Thomas  Chillenden,  the  treasurers,  than  on  any  special 
efforts  of  his  own.”  Chillenden  succeeded  him  as 
prior,  and  brought  to  a successful  issue  the  great  work 
of  rebuilding  the  nave,  and  with  Chillenden’s  name 
the  nave  of  Canterbury  Cathedral  has  always  been 
connected  ; but  it  is  only  fair  to  state  that  no  incon- 
siderable part  of  the  work  was  done  under  the  auspices 
of  Prior  Finch. 


Capital  in  the  Crypt 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  PRIORATE  OF  THOMAS  CHILLENDEN 
1391-1411 

Thomas  Chillenden,  who  succeeded  Finch  in  1391, 
left  a broader  mark  upon  the  fabric  of  church  and 
convent  than  an y prior  before  or  after  him.  In 
the  words  of  John  Leland,  the  antiquary,  he  was 
“ the  greatest  Builder  of  a Prior  that  ever  was  in 
Christes  Churche.” 

John  Stone,  who  was  almost  a contemporary,  calls 
Chillenden  the  “ Flower  ” of  Christ  Church  Priors,  and 
one  whose  indefatigable  labours  could  only  meet  with 
their  due  reward  in  heaven  ( Thomas  Anglorum  flos 
Chillendenne  priorum , gloria  coelorum  cui  detur  ob  acta 
lab  or  urn).1 

A complete  list  of  the  building  operations  under- 
taken by  Chillenden  is  recorded  upon  the  back  of  the 
general  account  roll  of  the  monastery  for  the  year  in 
which  he  died  (141 1) 2 ; and  further  details  are  supplied 
by  an  anonymous  chronicler  who  was  an  inmate  of  the 
house  when  the  various  works  were  being  carried  out.8 
From  these  sources  we  can  gain  some  idea  of  the  restless 
energy  of  Chillenden  as  a builder,  and  are  led  to  the 
conclusion  that  during  the  twenty  years  of  his  rule  the 
sound  of  axes  and  hammers  must  have  reverberated 
through  the  precincts  without  intermission. 

J MS.  C.C.C.  Cambridge,  No.  417. 

2 Roll  C.  166,  Chart ce  Antique , Christ  Church,  Canterbury,  printed 
by  Willis  in  Arch&ologia  Cantiana , vol.  vii.  pp.  187-89. 

3 MS.  C.  14,  Canterbury  Archives.  Printed  in  Archaologia  Cantiana , 
vol.  xxix. 

1 67 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

The  chief  work  was,  of  course,  the  rebuilding  of  the 
nave,  on  which  during  the  first  four  years  of  Chillen- 
den’s  priorate  an  average  sum  of  nearly  five  hundred 
pounds  was  spent.  In  his  fifth  year,  probably  owing 
to  the  fact  that  much  decorative  work  was  going  on 
in  the  choir,  only  two  hundred  and  eighty  pounds 
could  be  spared  for  the  new  nave.  In  order  to  give 
a fresh  stimulus  to  the  liberality  of  churchmen,  the 
convent  now  obtained  from  Pope  Boniface  IX  a bull 
granting  to  all  persons  who  would  visit  the  cathedral 
church  and  give  alms  “ for  the  repair  and  conserva- 
tion of  its  fabric  ” an  indulgence  of  seven  years  and 
seven  Lents  (quadragence)}  A little  later  a further 
augmentation  of  the  building  fund  was  obtained  by 
the  gift  of  the  rectories  of  Godmersham  and  Westwell 
from  Archbishop  Arundel,  who  in  the  deed  of 
conveyance  states  that  the  “ prior  and  convent  had 
laudably  expended  upwards  of  five  thousand  marks 
out  of  their  common  property  upon  the  construction 
of  the  said  nave  and  other  necessary  works  about  the 
church,  and  that  six  thousand  marks  would  be  too 
little  to  finish  the  work  as  begun,  and  others  that  must 
be  done  about  the  prostrate  cloister,  and  the  Chapter- 
house,  which  is  thought  to  be  in  a dangerous  state.”  2 
Unfortunately,  our  chronicler  does  not  record  the 
sums  spent  on  the  nave  during  the  next  three  years. 
But  it  would  seem  that  in  the  year  1400-1  it  was 
approaching  completion,  for  at  that  date  the  Prior 
and  convent  received  from  Archbishop  Arundel  the 
munificent  donation  of  one  thousand  marks  towards 
“ the  building  of  the  vault  of  the  church.”  In  all 
probability,  therefore,  the  nave  was  structurally  com- 
plete very  early  in  the  fifteenth  century. 

The  architectural  effect  of  Chillenden’s  nave  suffers 
from  the  narrowness  of  the  structure  in  proportion  to 

1 “ Calendar  of  Papal  Registers,”  R.S.,  vol.  iv.  p.  507. 

2 Somner,  p.  89,  and  app.  p.  24 ; and  Willis’s  “ Architectural 
History,”  p.  118. 


The  Nave 


PRIORAP  E OF  CHILLENDEN 

its  height — a defect  which  is  most  apparent  in  the  side 
aisles,  which  at  Canterbury  are  carried  up  much  higher 
than  at  Winchester,  the  nave  of  which  cathedral  was 
undergoing  transformation  at  the  same  period.  More- 
over, at  Winchester  the  Norman  piers  were  encased  in 
new  ashlar  work,  which  of  course  increased  their 
diameter  and  produced  a bolder  effect  than  the  slender 
columns  of  Canterbury.  The  roof  of  the  latter 
cathedral  with  its  elaborate  lierne  vaulting  is  doubtless 
a beautiful  feature,  but  even  there  the  numerous 
shields  of  arms  emblazoned  on  its  bosses  serve  but  to 
remind  us  that  the  age  of  faith  had  given  place  to  the 
age  of  heraldry.  “ No  reflection  of  religious  zeal  can 
be  discerned  in  the  architectural  expression  of  the 
naves  of  Winchester  and  Canterbury,”  says  Mr.  E.  G. 
Prior  ; “ rather  must  we  see  in  them  the  tomb  of  the 
religious  sentiment  of  art,  as  their  ordered  and  scientific 
panelling  first  overlaid  and  then  wiped  out  of  existence 
the  architecture  of  faith.”  1 

With  regard  to  the  internal  arrangement  of  the  new 
nave,  the  Lady  Chapel,  which  in  Lanfranc’s  church 
occupied  the  two  eastern  bays  of  the  north  aisle,  was 
replaced  by  Chillenden  in  the  same  position.  But 
the  casing  of  the  Norman  piers  of  the  great  central 
tower  with  new  ashlar  work  necessitated  a rearrange- 
ment of  the  flight  of  steps  leading  to  the  choir ; and 
the  screen  with  the  great  Rood  over  it,  which,  accord- 
ing to  Gervase’s  description,  formerly  stood  between 
the  western  piers  of  the  tower,  was  now  removed,  and 
in  its  place  a lofty  iron  grille  with  central  gates  was 
erected.  This  grille,  which  extended  right  across  the 
church,  is  shown  in  the  view  of  the  nave  published  by 
Dart  in  1726,  and  it  kept  its  place  until  1743,  when  it 
was  removed  ; and  the  iron  gates  were  set  up  again 
in  the  western  and  southern  porches,  where  they  still 
remain. 

Between  the  eastern  piers  Chillenden  built  a new 

1 “ Cathedral  Builders  in  England,”  p.  86. 


I7I 


CANTERBURT CATHEDRAL 

stone  screen.  Eastry’s  screen,  however,  was  not 
destroyed  but  was  left  to  form  the  eastern  face  of  the 
new  one.  The  increased  width  gave  space  for  a com- 
modious loft  or  'pul'pitum  above,  over  which  the  Rood 
was  suspended.  Chillenden’s  choir  screen  is  a very 
beautiful  and  elaborate  piece  of  work,  which,  although 
it  has  been  subjected  to  some  restoration , remains  to-day 
substantially  as  he  left  it.  Its  most  remarkable  features 
are  the  sculptured  figures  which  adorn  its  western 
front.  These  are  arranged  in  two  tiers.  In  the 
upper  one  there  is  a central  niche  and  twelve  sub- 
sidiary ones,  which  in  modern  times  have  been  filled 
respectively  by  figures  of  our  Lord  and  the  twelve 
Apostles.  But  the  six  large  figures  of  the  lower  tier — 
three  on  either  side  of  the  central  doorway — are  ancient. 
From  the  fact  that  all  are  crowned  we  may  conclude  that 
they  represent  kings,  but  their  identification  has  never 
been  established  satisfactorily.  There  can  be  little 
doubt,  however,  that  the  figure  on  the  left-hand  side  of 
the  doorway,  holding  the  model  of  a church,  is  intended 
to  represent  King  Ethelbert,  the  royal  founder  of 
Christ  Church.  Possibly  the  next  figure  on  the  same 
side,  the  features  of  which  are  of  a feminine  cast  and  in 
which  the  drapery  is  arranged  in  a different  manner 
from  the  rest,  may  be  intended  for  Queen  Bertha. 
The  bearded  figure  on  the  right-hand  side  of  the  door- 
way, with  the  right  hand  slightly  raised,  may  perhaps 
be  King  Edward  the  Confessor.  The  sword,  however, 
which  has  been  placed  in  the  left  hand  of  this  figure, 
is  a modern  addition,  for  which  no  authority  is  known  ; 
it  certainly  was  not  there  when  Britton  published  his 
drawing  of  the  screen  in  1836.1  The  next  figure  on 
the  same  side,  from  the  resemblance  of  the  features 
to  those  of  the  effigy  on  Henry  IV’s  tomb  in  the 
retrochoir,  has  been  considered  to  represent  that  mon- 
arch ; while  the  next  may  be  that  of  his  unfortunate 

1 “ The  History  and  Antiquities  of  the  Metropolitical  Church  of 
Canterbury,”  by  John  Britton,  London,  1836. 

I72 


PR10RATE  OF  CHILLEN DEN 

predecessor,  Richard  II.  Both  kings  were  liberal 
contributors  to  the  rebuilding  of  the  nave,  and  were 
therefore  likely  to  be  commemorated  in  this  way. 

Chillenden’s  archway  over  the  central  doorway  is 
considerably  higher  than  that  of  Eastry’s  screen,  which 
still  forms  an  inner  arch  beneath  the  newer  work,  and 
the  tympanum  between  the  two  arches  is  filled  in  with 
panelled  work.  On  the  apex  of  the  outer  arch  is  a 
niche,  now  filled  by  a silver-gilt  figure  of  our  Lord  in 
the  attitude  of  blessing.1  In  the  soffits  of  the  loftier 
archway  are  twelve  mitred  niches  which  once  con- 
tained figures  of  the  twelve  Apostles,  arranged  in  pairs. 
These  images  were  destroyed  by  the  Puritans,  but  the 
iron  staples  which  once  held  them  in  their  places 
remain. 

Although  during  Chillenden’s  priorate  vast  sums 
of  money  were  spent  upon  the  nave,  the  choir  was 
by  no  means  neglected.  Chief  among  the  decora- 
tive work  carried  out  here  was  the  erection  of 
what  would  now  be  called  a reredos  for  the  high 
altar,  but  which  appears  in  contemporary  records 
as  a new  tabula . Of  this  magnificent  and  costly 
work,  which  occupied  six  years. in  the  making  (1394- 
1400),  several  interesting  particulars  have  been  pre- 
served. The  tabula , which  was  of  silver  and  weighed 
903  lb.  troy,  was  doubtless  of  tabernacle  work,  in 
which  were  set  images  of  the  same  precious  metal ; 
since  we  know  that  amongst  the  benefactions  of  Arch- 
bishop Courtenay  were  an  image  of  the  Holy  Trinity  and 
six  others  of  the  Apostles,  all  of  silver-gilt  and  worth 
^340.2  Another  notable  ornament  which  is  mentioned 
in  the  list  of  Chillenden’s  good  works  in  connection 
with  the  new  tabula  is  “ an  image  of  the  Blessed 

1 The  gift  of  Mrs.  Hughes  D’Aeth,  of  Canterbury  in  1899. 

2 “ Item  unam  ymaginem  Sancti  Trinitatis  preciosiorem  cum  sex 
apostolis  argenteis  et  nobiliter  deauratis  ad  tabulam  summi  altaris  . . . 
que  quidem  ymagines  ad  valorem  cccxl  librarum  appreciantur  in 
presenti.”  Register  S,  f.  23. 


173 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Virgin,  with  four  angels  of  silver  and  gilt,  and  with  a 
precious  cup  of  gold  with  gems  in  the  hand  of  the 
Virgin  for  putting  in  the  body  of  Christ  ascending 
and  descending  at  pleasure.”  1 Of  this  curious  and 
unusual  arrangement  for  hanging  the  pyx,  Mr.  St. 
John  Hope  quotes  another  instance  from  the  will  of 
a parishioner  of  Walberswick,  in  Suffolk,  where  the 
testator  left  ten  pounds  to  his  parish  church  in  1500 
to  be  spent  upon  “ a canope  over  the  hygh  awter  welle 
done  with  oure  lady  and  iiij  angelys  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  going  upp  and  doune  with  a cheyne.”  2 

At  the  same  time  a screen  of  woodwork,  elaborately 
carved  and  adorned  with  colour  and  gilding,  was  set 
up  behind  the  altars  of  St.  Alphege  and  St.  Dunstan, 
which  stood  respectively  north  and  south  of  the  high 
altar.3 

The  dedication  of  this  magnificent  altar-piece,  on 
which  the  convent  spent  the  astounding  sum  of 
^3428,  was  the  first  official  act  of  Archbishop  Arundel 
after  his  return  from  exile  in  the  year  1400.  Its  subse- 
quent fate  may  be  briefly  recorded  here.  Although 
it  would  appear  that  Henry  VIII  did  not  lay  his 
sacrilegious  hands  on  the  massive  silver  tabula , since 
in  an  inventory  made  at  the  time  of  the  suppression 
of  the  priory  it  is  mentioned  amongst  the  goods 
“ left  to  remain  in  the  church,”  it  did  not  survive  the 
scrutiny  of  Edward  Vi’s  commissioners,  for  in  the  first 
year  of  his  reign  it  was  sent  to  London  by  order  of  the 
Privy  Council.4  Part  of  the  wooden  screen-work, 

1 “ Et  una  ymagine  beatae  virginis  cum  corona  aurea  et  gemmis,  cum 
iiij  Angelis  argenteis  et  deauratis  et  cipho  aureo  precioso  cum  gemmis 
in  manu  virginis  pro  corpore  Xpi  imponendo,  ascendendo  et  descendendo 
quum  placet.”  Roll  C,  1 66. 

2 “ Inventories  of  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,”  1902,  p.  no,  note. 

3 “ Maius  vero  altare  cum  duobus  altaribus  sanctorum  Dunstani  et 
Elphegi  opere  argenteo  et  aureo  et  ligneo  subtiliter  inciso  decenter 
ornavit.”  Obituary  of  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,  Lambeth  MS.  20, 
i.nob.  Stt  also  “A  Monastic  Chronicle,”  edited  by  C.  Eveleigh 
Woodruff,  in  Archaologia  Cantiana , vol.  xxix. 

4 “ Acts  of  the  Privy  Council  of  England,”  New  Series,  vol.  ii.  p.  529. 

*74 


PRIORATE  OF  CHILLENDEN 

however,  though  grievously  defaced  by  the  Puritans 
in  the  seventeenth  century,  seems  to  have  been  in  situ 
until  the  altar  was  removed  from  its  ancient  position 
in  1825  and  set  back  to  the  place  it  now  occupies,  for 
Brayley  in  his  “ Beauties  of  England  and  Wales  ” 
(published  in  1808)  says:  “ At  the  back  of  the  present 
screen  stands  the  old  screen,  which  was  once  splendidly 
ornamented  with  blue  and  gold,  and  still  displays 
whole-length  figures  of  the  Apostles,  &c.” 

After  dwelling  so  long  on  the  splendours  of  the  new 
altar-piece,  it  seems  a sad  bathos  to  proceed  to  describe 
the  whitewashing  of  the  choir — a method  of  beautify- 
ing churches  which  in  many  minds  is  connected 
with  the  worst  traditions  of  the  last  century.  But 
the  practice  was  one  which  was  by  no  means  con- 
fined to  what  has  been  called  the  “ churchwarden 
period,”  since  all  through  the  Middle  Ages  it  was  in 
vogue,  partly  no  doubt  as  a sanitary  measure.  Thus 
the  dealbacio  ckori  obtains  an  honourable  place  in  the 
list  of  Chillenden’s  works,  and  was  deemed  such  an 
important  matter  that  a special  subscription  list  was 
opened  to  defray  the  cost,  to  which  all  sorts  and  condi- 
tions of  men  contributed,  from  the  Prior,  who  gave 
6s.  8d.,  to  John  Brown,  citizen  and  plumber,  who 
contributed  10s.1 

Another  piece  of  work  undertaken  in  the  choir  was 
the  repavement  of  the  north  aisle  and  adjoining 
transept,  where  the  neat  marble  blocks,  laid  in  a set 
design,  still  afford  a striking  contrast  to  the  irregular 
slabs  of  divers  materials  with  which  the  south  aisle  is 
paved.  A further  improvement  carried  out  in  the 
same  aisle  was  the  removal  of  certain  chambers  used 
as  lodgings  for  the  sub-sacrists.  These  apartments, 
which  our  Christ  Church  chronicler  says  “ obstructed 
in  a very  unseemly  manner  the  passage  leading  to  the 
shrine  of  St.  Thomas,”  were  probably  little  more  than 
wooden  partitions.  They  were  now  cleared  away, 
1 Sacrist’s  Account  Roll,  1392-93. 


PRIORATE  OF  CHILLENDEN 

beyond  the  southern  alley,  towards  the  rebuilding  of 
which  Archbishop  Courtenay  contributed  two  hundred 
pounds.  The  rebuilding  of  the  nave  must  have 
necessitated  the  demolition  of  this  south  alley,  and  it 
is  probable  that  after  this  was  re-erected  in  the  new 
style  its  appearance  gave  so  much  satisfaction  that  it 
was  resolved  for  the 
sake  of  uniformity  to 
give  similar  treatment 
to  the  three  remaining 
sides  of  the  quad- 
rangle. A new  school 
for  the  novices  was 
built  at  the  same  time, 
which,  since  it  is  men- 
tioned in  connection 
with  the  cellarer’s 
lodging,  was  probably 
at  the  southern  end 
of  that  building,  and 
was  approached  by 
the  little  door  on  the 
right  - hand  side  of 
the  main  entrance  at 
the  western  end  of 
the  south  alley  of  the 
cloister. 

To  his  own  private 
apartments  Chillen- 
den  made  many  important  improvements,  but  as  the 
Prior’s  lodgings  are  no  longer  in  existence  we  need  not 
describe  them  particularly ; perhaps  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  was  the  addition  of  a bathroom  ( alia 
camera  injerius  cum  camino  et  balneo  honesto) — surely 
a rarity  in  any  house  in  the  fifteenth  century  ! 

In  the  court  of  the  priory  a new  chamber  was  built 
over  the  Norman  gate-house,  the  great  semicircular 
arch  of  which  was  strengthened  by  the  insertion  on  its 

m 1 77 


Doorway  from  the  Cloister 
to  the  Infirmary 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

western  side  of  two  four-centred  archways — a great* 
one  for  carts  and  a lesser  one  for  pedestrians.1  Fro: 
the  court  gate  to  the  portal  of  the  cellarer’s  hall 
covered  way  or  pentise  was  erected,  part  of  which  sti 
remains  in  the  gardens  of  the  Bishop  of  Dover  and  < 
the  Seneschal.  This  pentise,  which  is  constructed  < 
timber  and  covered  with  a tiled  roof,  was  put  up  in  tl 
year  1393-94,  and  cost  £1 10.  A work  of  much  great< 
magnitude  was  the  rebuilding  of  the  length  of  cil 
wall  which  lay  between  the  North-gate  and  Quenir 
gate.  The  latter,  which  occupied  a position  a litt 
to  the  north  of  the  present  postern  opposite  to  S 
Augustine’s  College,  is  said  to  have  derived  its  nan 
from  the  tradition  that  Queen  Bertha,  while  h( 
husband,  King  Ethelbert,  was  still  a pagan,  w; 
accustomed  to  pass  this  way  to  her  devotions  in  tb 
little  church  of  St.  Martin  outside  the  city  wall 
Between  the  two  gates  there  had  been  a public  rigt 
of  way,  known  as  Queningate  Lane,  enclosed  on  on 
side  by  the  convent  wall  and  on  the  other  by  ths 
of  the  city.  The  prior  and  chapter  now  acquire 
from  the  city  fathers  this  narrow  strip  of  grounc 
and  in  return  undertook  to  rebuild  this  portio 
of  the  wall  and  to  keep  it  in  repair.  This  ws 
now  done  by  Chillenden,  and  his  work  is  still  to  b 
identified  by  the  four  square  bastion  towers  (the  res 
are  semicircular)  which  project  from  the  length  c 
the  wall  which  lies  between  the  points  already  in 
dicated.  The  above  work  was  probably  undertake: 
early  in  his  priorate,  since  Archbishop  Courtenay 
whose  death  occurred  in  1393,  gave  £2 66  13s.  4c] 
towards  it. 

Extensive  repairs  were  carried  out  by  Chillendej 
to  house  property  in  the  city  of  Canterbury,  in  th 
country,  and  in  London. 

He  rebuilt  Canterbury  College  in  Oxford,  of  whic] 

1 The  corresponding  arches  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  gate  wer 
inserted  in  the  last  century. 

178 


The  Pentise 


PRIORATE  OF  CH1LLENDEN 

we  shall  give  some  account  in  a later  chapter ; and 
the  great  inn  at  the  south-west  corner  of  Mercery 
Lane  in  Canterbury,  known  to  Chaucer  as  the  44  Cheker 
of  the  Hope.”  The  latter  was  a very  costly  piece  of 
work,  for  in  all  £867  14s.  4d.  was  spent  upon  it. 
Possibly  the  outlay  was  not  a particularly  good 
investment,  since  pilgrimages  to  the  shrine  of  46  the 
holy  blissful  martyr  ” declined  rapidly  towards  the 
end  of  the  century  ; and  doubtless  it  was  with  an 
eye  to  catering  for  the  wants  of  the  miscellaneous 
assemblage  of  persons  drawn  to  Canterbury  by  the 
reputation  of  the  wonder-working  saint  that  the 
convent  spent  such  an  enormous  sum  on  the  erection 
of  this  hostel. 

The  various  works  enumerated  above,  though  by  no 
means  all  that  Chillenden  undertook,  are  sufficient  to 
show  his  passion  for  building.  Nor  was  his  zeal  in 
providing  for  the  adjuncts  of  divine  service  less  con- 
spicuous than  that  displayed  upon  the  fabric  of  the 
church,  for  the  compotus  roll  above  referred  to  gives 
an  amazing  list  of  ornaments,  jewels,  and  vestments 
acquired  during  his  priorate.  The  latter  may  be 
summarised  as  follows  : A set  of  thirty-nine  copes  of 
cloth  of  gold  ; a red  suit  with  twenty-two  albes  ; and 
44 a great  suit  of  copes  of  green  colour,  namely,  ninety-six 
copes,  with  five  chasubles,  six  tunicles,  two  dalmatics, 
seventy-six  albes,  stoles,  and  fanons,  and  all  the  gear  of 
the  high  altar  and  of  St.  Alphege  and  St.  Dunstan.”1 
Some  of  these  vestments  no  doubt  formed  part  of  the 
munificent  gift  of  John  Buckingham,  sometime  Bishop 
of  Lincoln,  who  resigned  his  see  and  retired  to  Canter- 
bury, where  he  was  taken  into  fraternity  by  the  monks 
of  Christ  Church,  and  after  a sojourn  of  twenty-four 
weeks  ended  his  days  in  the  house  called  44  Master 
Omers”  on  March  10,  1397, 2 leaving  to  the  prior  and 

3 “ Inventories  of  Christ  Church,”  op.  cit.  p.  103. 

2 “ In  quodam  manso  vulgariter  Meistr’  Omers  nuncupato.” 
CaustorC s Obituary. 


I8l 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

convent  his  pastoral  staff  and  many  valuable  vestments 
and  ornaments. 

Bishop  Buckingham  had  intended  to  found  a chantry 
in  the  cathedral  church,  but  his  death  occurred  before 
this  could  be  carried  out.  His  wishes,  however,  were 
fulfilled  by  his  executors,  who  in  1399  paid  over  to 
the  prior  and  chapter  the  sum  of  twelve  hundred 
marks  as  the  endowment  of  a chantry  chapel  to  be 
erected  near  the  bishop’s  tomb  in  the  nave,  at  which 
prayers  and  masses  might  be  said  for  the  repose  of 
the  souls  of  the  founder,  of  his  parents,  “ of  King 
Edward  III,  of  Thomas  de  Beauchamp,  Earl  of 
Warwick,  and  of  Henry  de  Ferrars,  lately  lord  of  Groli.” 

The  foundation  deed  provided  that  the  chapel  should 
be  served  by  two  priests,  who  in  addition  to  their 
duties  in  the  chantry,  should  assist  in  the  almonry 
chapel  on  Sundays  and  feast  days;  and,  further,  that 
both  the  chaplains  were  to  dress  alike,  live  together 
in  a house  in  the  precincts,  and  receive  from  the 
convent  an  annual  stipend  of  ten  marks  each,  an 
allowance  of  “ six  yards  of  good  cloth  with  a suffi- 
cient trimmings  of  fur,  a candle  from  Michaelmas  to 
Whitsuntide,  and  one  load  of  firewood.1 

No  traces  of  Buckingham’s  chantry  are  left.  But 
from  a plan  of  the  various  monumental  slabs  made 
previous  to  the  repaving  of  the  nave  in  the  eighteenth 
century,  it  appears  that  the  bishop’s  tomb  was  oppo- 
site the  seventh  bay  of  the  north  aisle,  nearly  in  a 
line  with  the  procession  door  from  the  cloister,  and 
we  know  from  the  foundation  deed  that  the  chapel 
was  near  the  tomb.2  It  therefore  seems  likely  that 
the  chapel  was  beneath  the  seventh  arch  of  the  north 
aisle,  and  enclosed  by  screen-work  perhaps  similar  to 
that  which  still  remains  round  Bishop  Bubwith’s 
chantry  in  the  nave  of  Wells  Cathedral. 

1 Register  D,  f.  313. 

a “ In  quadam  capella  juxta  tumbam  ejusdem  patris  defuncti  et  ubi 
corpus  ejusdem  jacet  humatum.”  Cart.  Antiq.  C.  144. 

182 


Prior’s  Doorway  in  Dark  Entry 


PRIORATE  OF  CH1LLENDEN 

Another  chantry  founded  in  the  church  when 
Chillenden  was  prior  was  that  of  Lady  Mohun  in  the 
chapel  of  St.  Mary  in  the  crypt.  This  lady,  who  was 
the  daughter  of  Bartholomew  de  Burghersh,  Baron 
Burghersh  (or  Burwash),  and  the  widow  of  John  de 
Mohun,  eighth  Baron  of  Dunster  in  Somerset,  deserved 
well  of  the  prior  and  convent  of  Christ  Church 
in  that  she  had  obtained  from  King  Richard  II  a 
munificent  donation  towards  the  rebuilding  of  the 
nave.  In  return  for  these  good  offices,  and  a fee  of 
three  hundred  and  fifty  marks,  a moiety  of  her 
manor  of  Selgrave,  and  further  gifts  of  ornaments 
and  vestments  for  the  church,  Lady  Mohun  was 
allowed  to  found  her  chantry  and  erect  her  tomb  with 
recumbent  effigy  on  the  south  side  of  the  sanctuary 
of  the  chapel  of  St.  Mary  in  the  undercroft.  At  the 
altar  of  the  said  chapel  requiem  masses  were  said  by 
one  of  the  monks,  to  whom  a stipend  of  forty  shillings 
a year  was  allotted.  This  agreement  was  entered  into 
in  1395,  and  the  tomb  (which  unfortunately  involved 
the  destruction  of  the  screen-work  of  the  south- 
eastern bay  of  the  chapel)  must  have  been  finished  by 
1404,  since  in  that  year  Lady  Mohun  made  her  will 
and  gave  instructions  for  the  burial  of  her  body  “ in 
the  sepulchre  or  monument  which  I have  caused  to 
be  made,  at  my  expense,  near  the  image  of  St.  Mary 
in  criptis  of  the  church  of  Canterbury.”  1 

Thomas  Chillenden,  as  we  have  seen,  effected  an 
almost  complete  transformation  of  the  cathedral  and 
its  surroundings,  and  it  is  solely  as  a builder  that  his 
name  is  now  remembered  at  Canterbury;  but  to  his 
contemporaries  these  were  not  the  sole  reasons  for  the 
esteem  and  honour  in  which  he  was  held.  Even  before 
he  became  prior  he  had  represented  his  house  in  the 
Roman  curia  with  so  much  success  that  he  had 
obtained  a papal  bull  conferring  important  privileges 
on  the  priors  of  Christ  Church.  During  his  priorate 
1 Arundel’s  “ Register,”  i.  218 b. 

185 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

he  was  on  several  occasions  summoned  to  the  councils 
of  the  nation  ; indeed,  he  was  present  at  the  Parlia- 
ment which  compelled  Richard  II  to  sign  a deed  of 
renunciation  of  the  crown.  He  was,  however,  the 
last  prior  of  Christ  Church  to  whom  a writ  was  ad- 
dressed. In  almost  the  last  year  of  his  life  he  attended 
the  Council  of  Pisa  as  one  of  the  representatives  of  the 
King  of  England.  The  Council  declared  that  both  the 
rival  Popes  were  schismatics,  perjurers,  and  heretics, 
and  by  the  election  of  the  Cardinal  of  Milan,  who 
took  the  name  of  Alexander  V,  the  great  schism  in  the 
Western  Church  was  healed.  This  was  on  June  5, 
1409,  and  on  the  25th  of  August  Chillenden  landed 
at  Sandwich,  where  he  was  received  with  the  greatest 
enthusiasm  by  a vast  concourse  of  clergy  and  lay  folk, 
by  whom  he  was  escorted  to  Canterbury  with  every 
demonstration  of  joy.1 

His  death  occurred  on  the  feast  of  the  Assumption 
1411,  and  although  he  can  scarcely  have  been  an  old 
man,  since  he  had  only  made  his  profession  some 
thirty-five  years  earlier,  his  life  had  been  so  strenuous 
that  we  are  scarcely  surprised  to  read  in  his  obituary 
“ that  his  body  had  become  so  emaciated  that  the 
skin  scarcely  covered  the  bones.”  2 

He  was  buried  at  the  upper  end  of  the  central  alley 
of  the  nave.  His  memorial  stone,  once  inlaid  with 
his  effigy  in  brass,  was  removed  in  1787  when  the  nave 
was  repaved,  and  can  no  longer  be  identified  ; but  in 
Canterbury  Cathedral  it  may  be  said  of  Thomas 
Chillenden,  as  of  Sir  Christopher  Wren  in  St.  Paul’s, 
London : Si  monumentum  requiris  circumsfice. 

C.  E.  W. 


1 “ Cum  omni  clero  populique  tripudio  ad  ecclesiam  suam  reversus.” 
Ch.  Ch.  Cant.  MS.  c.  14. 

2 MS.  D.  12,  Christ  Church,  Canterbury. 


CHAPTER  X 


FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  THOMAS  CHILLENDEN  TO 
THE  DISSOLUTION  OF  THE  PRIORY 

1411-1540 

The  extraordinary  expenditure  upon  bricks  and  mortar 
which  had  marked  the  priorate  of  Thomas  Chillenden 
left  the  convent  deeply  in  debt.  There  was  an  adverse 
balance  of  more  than  a 
thousand  pounds  when 
John  of  Wodensburgh 
was  elected  prior  in 
1411 — a burden  which 
was  increased  by  the 
fact  that  many  of  the 
buildings  commenced 
by  his  predecessor  still 
awaited  completion, 
one  of  which,  viz.  the 


Waterspout  of  the  South  Porch 

no  delay.  Fortunately 

the  new  Prior  was  a man  of  excellent  business  capacity, 
and  so  successfully  did  he  grapple  with  the  financial 
problem  that  in  less  than  three  years  he  not  only 
cleared  off  the  liabilities  bequeathed  to  him  by  his 
predecessor,  but  could  point  to  a substantial  balance 
of  more  than  eight  hundred  pounds  on  the  right  side 
of  the  monastic  ledger.*  The  merit  of  this  achieve- 

1 For  an  account  of  Wodensburgh’s  economic  reforms,  see  the 
Anonymous  Christ  Church  Chronicle  (E.  14)  printed  in  Archceologia 
Cantiana , vol.  xxix. 

187 


rebuilding  of  the  great 
cloister,  would  admit  of 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

ment  is  greatly  enhanced  by  the  fact  that  during  the 
same  short  period  more  than  five  hundred  pounds 
were  spent  upon  the  cloister,  which  seems  to  have 
been  finished  in  the  year  1414. 

The  cloister  of  Canterbury  Cathedral  (though 
greatly  inferior  to  that  of  Gloucester,  which  in  many 
respects  it  closely  resembles)  is  even  in  its  present 
dilapidated  condition  a very  beautiful  specimen  of 
the  architecture  of  the  early  years  of  the  fifteenth 
century.  Perhaps  its  most  remarkable  feature  is  the 
extraordinarily  diffuse  display  of  heraldic  coats  which 
decorate  the  elaborately  groined  roof.  Willement, 
who  counted  more  than  eight  hundred  of  these  shields 
and  described  them  in  his  “ Heraldic  Notices  of  the 
Cathedral,”  points  out  how  excellent  must  have 
been  the  effect  when  the  colours  and  tinctures  of  the 
various  coats  were  fresh. 

It  is  generally  believed  that  the  arms  displayed  are 
those  of  contributors  to  the  work.  Conspicuous 
amongst  them  are  those  of  King  Henry  IV,  who 
certainly  was  a liberal  donor  towards  the  building 
funds,  for  Leland  records  that  “ he  helped  to  build 
up  a good  part  of  the  body  of  the  church.” 

Henry  IV,  however,  could  scarcely  have  seen  the 
new  cloister,  for  before  it  was  finished  his  dead  body 
was  brought  to  Canterbury  for  interment. 

The  event  was  unique  in  the  annals  of  Christ 
Church,  for  neither  before  nor  since  have  the  doors  of 
the  metropolitical  church  been  opened  to  receive  the 
remains  of  an  English  king.  Possibly,  as  the  founder 
of  a new  dynasty,  Henry  may  have  desired  to  create  a 
precedent  which  might  make  the  mother-church  the 
mausoleum  of  a long  line  of  Lancastrian  kings.  But 
if  he  entertained  any  such  hope,  it  was  doomed  to 
disappointment,  for  his  example  was  never  followed. 
The  King’s  body  was  brought  by  water  to  Faver- 
sham,  and  thence  by  road  to  Canterbury,  where  on 
Trinity  Sunday  in  the  year  1413  the  funeral  obse- 
188 


The  Cloister  ( North  Side) 


CHILLENDEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 

quies  were  performed  by  Archbishop  Arundel  and 
Prior  Wodens burgh  in  the  presence  of  King  Henry  V, 
and  all  the  great  nobility  of  the  land. 

The  spot  chosen  for  the  interment  of  the  royal 
corpse  was  the  most  honourable  that  the  church 
could  offer,  namely,  on  the  north  side  of  the  shrine  of 
St.  Thomas  and  immediately  opposite  to  the  tomb  of 
Edward  the  Black  Prince,  whose  son,  the  ill-fated 
Richard  II,  Henry  of  Bolingbroke  had  ousted  from 
the  throne.  In  his  will  the  King  left  instructions 
for  the  erection  of  a chantry  chapel  near  to  his  tomb 
in  which  “ twey  prestis  ” should  sing  and  pray  for 
his  soul ; but  it  would  seem  that  neither  the  chapel 
nor  the  fine  alabaster  tomb  which  now  covers  his 
remains  was  erected  until  after  the  death  of  the  Queen- 
Consort,  which  did  not  occur  until  some  four-and- 
twenty  years  later.  In  the  meantime,  it  is  likely  that 
the  royal  coffin  rested  upon  a herse  or  temporary 
framework  of  timber  draped  with  rich  hangings  and 
surrounded  by  numerous  wax  tapers.  It  is  clear 
that  the  herse  must  have  been  a magnificent  and 
costly  piece  of  furniture,  since  when  it  was  no  longer 
required  the  prior  and  convent  were  able  to  sell  it  for 
a sum  of  money  equivalent  to  more  than  one  thousand 
pounds  at  the  present  time.  This  was  after  the  death 
of  Queen  Joan,  who  died  at  Havering  in  1437,  and 
was  brought  to  Canterbury  for  burial. 

Two  years  later  the  Bishop  of  Ross  hallowed  an 
altar  in  honour  of  King  Edward  the  Confessor  in  the 
little  chantry  chapel  built  between  the  buttresses  of 
the  north  aisle  of  St.  Thomas’s  Chapel  and  in  close 
proximity  to  the  royal  tomb.1  The  latter,  in  spite  of 
the  mutilation  of  some  of  the  details  and  the  loss  of 
the  colour  and  gilding  which  once  adorned  it,  is  still 
a very  fine  example  of  the  art  of  the  monumental 
mason  of  the  period. 

1 “ Stone’s  Chronicle,”  ed.  M.  R.  James  for  the  Cambridge  Anti- 
quarian Society,  p.  26. 

I9I 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

The  tomb,  which  is  placed  beneath  the  second  arch 
of  the  chapel,  is  surmounted  by  a wooden  canopy  or 
tester,  supported  at  each  end  by  a panel  of  the  same 
material.  On  the  western  panel  was  painted  a repre- 
sentation of  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Thomas.  This  is 
now  almost  entirely  obliterated,  but  it  was  apparently 
in  better  preservation  when  William  Carter  made  a 
drawing  of  it  in  1760  for  his  “ Specimens  of  Ancient 
Paintings,  Glass,  Woodwork,  &c.,”  from  which  source 
the  plate  on  p.  67  is  taken. 

On  the  opposite  panel  are  faint  traces  of  the  figure 
of  an  angel  holding  a shield  emblazoned  with  arms. 
On  the  underside  of  the  canopy  three  shields  are 
portrayed,  each  surrounded  with  the  letters  “ SS,” 
linked  together ; in  the  centre  are  the  arms  of  Evreux 
impaling  Navarre ; at  one  end  are  the  same  arms 
quartered,  and  at  the  other  end  those  of  France  and 
England  quarterly.  Across  the  ceiling  in  diagonal  lines 
are  the  words  “ Soveragne  ” and  “ a temperance,” 
alternately  repeated,  and  the  same  words  occur  again 
on  the  cornice.  The  groundwork  of  the  ceiling  appears 
to  have  been  painted  twice  over  and  in  different 
designs.  The  under  one,  which  in  many  parts  is  very 
perceptible,  consisted  of  eagles  and  greyhounds,  each 
surrounded  by  the  garter  and  placed  in  alternate 
diagonal  stripes.  In  the  last  painting  the  ground  was 
blue  with  sprigs  and  flowers  of  gold  and  green.1 

The  King  and  Queen  are  represented  with  coronets 
on  their  heads  and  arrayed  in  royal  robes.  Around 
the  Queen’s  neck  is  a collar  of  “ SS,”  said  to  be  one 
of  the  earliest  instances  of  this  decoration ; and 
beautifully  executed  representations  of  jewels  and 
embroidery  adorn  the  coronet  and  dress.  Concerning 
the  effigies,  the  late  Edward  Blore,  in  his  “ Monu- 
mental remains  of  royal  and  illustrious  Persons,”  says  : 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  they  were  the  workmanship  of  one 
of  the  ablest  artists  of  the  time ; and  as  the  features  have  sustained 


92 


1 Willement,  ut  supra,  pp.  51-53. 


CH1LLENDEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 

but  little  injury,  and  are  marked  with  that  decided  character  which 
belongs  to  a portrait  alone,  we  may  conclude  that  the  artist  has 
transmitted  to  us  a faithful  representation  of  the  features  of  the 
royal  personages. 

This  conjecture  was  to  some  extent  verified  (at  least 
as  far  as  the  King  is  concerned)  when  the  tomb  was 
opened  in  the  last  century. 

A pretext  for  prying  into  the  royal  sepulchre  was 
found  in  the  fact  that  a contemporary  writer,  one 
Clement  of  Maidstone,  retails  some  tittle-tattle  which 
was  current  in  his  day  to  the  effect  that  the  sailors,  being 
alarmed  by  a tempest  when  they  were  conveying 
the  royal  corpse  to  Faversham,  took  it  from  its 
coffin  and  threw  it  overboard.1  In  order  to  ascertain 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  this  tale,  the  tomb  was  opened 
by  order  of  the  dean  and  chapter  on  August  21,  1832. 
The  following  description  of  the  proceedings  is  from 
the  pen  of  Dr.  Spry,  one  of  the  canons,  who  was  an 
eye-witness  of  all  that  was  done  : 2 

On  removing  a portion  of  the  marble  pavement  at  the  western  end 
of  the  monument  ...  we  came  to  what  appeared  to  be  a wooden  case 
of  very  rude  form  and  construction.  ...  It  lay  east  and  west,  project- 
ing beyond  the  monument  towards  the  west  for  about  one- third  of 
its  length.  Upon  it,  to  the  east  and  entirely  within  the  monument,  lay 
a leaden  coffin  without  any  wooden  case,  of  much  smaller  size  and  very 
singular  shape,  being  formed  by  bending  one  sheet  of  lead  over  another 
and  soldering  them  at  the  junctions.  This  coffin  was  supposed  to 
contain  the  remains  of  Queen  Joan,  and  was  not  disturbed.  Not  being 
SfiLe  to  take  off  the  lid  of  the  large  coffin,  as  a great  portion  of  its  length 
was  under  the  tomb,  and  being  unwilling  to  move  the  alabaster  monu- 
ment for  the  purpose  of  getting  at  it,  it  was  decided  to  saw  through 
the  lid,  about  three  feet  from  what  was  supposed  to  be  the  head  of  the 
coffin.  And  this  being  done,  the  piece  of  wood  was  carefully  removed, 
and  found  to  be  of  elm,  very  coarsely  worked,  about  one  inch  and  a half 
thick.  Immediately  under  this  elm  board  was  a quantity  of  hay  bands, 
filling  the  coffin,  and  upon  the  surface  of  them  lay  a very  rude  small 

1 “ A History  of  the  Martyrdom  of  Richard  Scrope,  Archbishop  of 
York,”  Wharton’s  Anglia  Sacra , vol.  ii.  p.  372. 

2 Some  further  justification  of  the  action  of  the  Chapter  is  furnished 
by  the  recent  furbishing  up  of  Clement’s  gossip  in  a letter  by  a well- 
known  author  to  a London  newspaper. 

N 


J93 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

cross,  formed  by  merely  tying  two  twigs  together.  This  fell  to  pieces 
on  being  moved.  When  the  hay  bands  were  removed  we  found  a 
leaden  case  or  coffin,  moulded  in  some  degree  to  the  shape  of  a human 
figure,  and  it  was  at  once  evident  that  this  had  never  been  disturbed. 
...  In  order  to  ascertain  what  was  contained  in  this  leaden  case  it 
became  necessary  to  saw  through  a portion  of  it,  and  in  this  manner  an 
oval  piece  of  the  lead  . . . was  carefully  removed.  Under  this  we 
found  wrappers  which  seemed  to  be  of  leather,  and  afterwards  proved 
to  have  been  folded  five  times  round  the  body.  . . . These  wrappers 
were  cut  through  and  lifted  off,  when  to  the  astonishment  of  all  present 
the  face  of  the  deceased  King  was  seen  in  complete  preservation,  the 
nose  elevated,  the  cartilage  even  remaining ; though  on  the  admission 
of  the  air  it  sunk  rapidly  away,  and  had  entirely  disappeared  before  the 
examination  was  finished.  The  skin  of  the  chin  was  entire  . . . the 
beard  thick  and  matted  and  of  a deep  russet  colour.  . . . Having  thus 
ascertained  that  the  body  of  the  King  was  actually  deposited  in  the 
tomb,  and  that  it  had  never  been  disturbed,  the  wrappers  were  again 
laid  upon  the  face,  the  lead  drawn  back  over  them,  the  lid  of  the  coffin 
put  on,  the  rubbish  filled  in,  and  the  marble  pavement  replaced 
immediately.1 

Archbishop  Arundel  did  not  long  survive  his  royal 
master,  for  his  death  occurred  on  February  15  in  the 
following  year.  In  accordance  with  the  instructions 
contained  in  his  will  his  body  was  buried  in  the  nave 
of  the  cathedral,  where  he  had  made  arrangements 
during  his  lifetime  for  the  erection  of  a chantry  chapel. 2 
The  chapel  was  swept  away  soon  after  the  suppression  ; 
of  the  monastery,  and  there  has  been  some  uncer-  j 
tainty  about  its  position.  We  think,  however,  that 
there  is  sufficient  evidence  to  show  that  it  was 
beneath  the  second  arch  (counting  from  the  east  1 
end)  of  the  north  arcade  of  the  nave,  its  screens 
doubtless  projecting  into  the  central  alley.  Thus, 
Leland  amongst  the  “ High  Tumbes  of  Bishops 
that  be  in  the  body  of  the  Chirch,”  3 mentions 
Arundel  “ under  a piller  on  the  north  side.”  And 

1 Archaologia  Cantiana , vol.  viii.  pp.  294-99. 

a “ In  monumento  meo  novo  quod  ad  hoc  licet  indignissime  construi 
et  fieri  feci  in  navi  sancte  Cantuariensis  ecclesie,  infra  Cantariam  meam 
perpetuam  duorum  capellanorum  inibi  ordininatam.”  Register  S, 

ff.  77. 

3 “ Itinerary,”  ed.  T.  Hearne,  vi.  4. 

194 


iii. 


( - '1  , 
s’ 


jo 

„m  - 


j ; £|  * M 


« . 

l % i a 

' tU 

t-  p 

Li. 


A ■ * A 

IS]  i IT  r 

K r!r  ~ ' 

;,i  I 


2 

"M: 

& 


/%:U: 


Jb, 


-F  8 


- ii  ' 

, 

-i  I 

..  . . 

5 ■ >'  “ :• 

ih 


"Id 


1.  Archbishop 

Arundel 

2.  Prior  Thos. 

Chillenden 

3 Prior  John 

WODENSBUR* 

4 Prior  John 

Elham 

5.  Prior  John 

Salisbury 

6.  Archbishop 

Simon  Islii 

7.  Archbishop 

William 

Wittlesey 

8.  Sir  William 

Lovelace 

9.  Bishop  John 

Buckingha 

10.  Sir  William 

Septvans, 
Senior  ? 

11.  Sir  Willtam 

Septvans, 
Junior  ? 

12.  Sir  William 

Brenchley 


plan  of  the  floor 

OF  THE  NAVE 

Before  the  Removal  of  the  Gravestones  in  1787 


CH1LLEN  DEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 

Somner  says  much  the  same,  adding  : “ but  chantery 
and  monument  both  are  gone,  a bare  gravestone 
levelled  with  the  floor,  with  the  brass  all  shamefully 
torn  away,  being  only  left  ; whereas  you  may  know 
there  sometime  stood  a Chapel  . . . wherein  both 
the  Archbishop  lay  fairly  intombed,  and  his  two 
Chanterists  did  daily  celebrate.” 1 A reference  to 
the  plan  of  the  memorial  stones  on  the  floor  of  the 
nave,  made  before  its  repavement  in  1787,  and  now 
preserved  in  the  Chapter  library,  shows  that  the 
only  slab  which  at  all  corresponds  to  Somner’s  descrip- 
tion is  placed  against  the  second  pier  of  the  north 
arcade.  That  this  stone  marks  the  tomb  of  Arundel 
receives  further  confirmation  from  the  fact  that  a 
little  to  the  south  of  it  is  another  slab,  bearing  the 
matrix  of  an  effigy  of  an  ecclesiastic,  which  we  take  to 
be  that  of  Thomas  Chillenden,  of  whom  Somner  writes : 
“ He  was  a man  well  beloved  of  Archbishop  Courtenay, 
but  more  dear  to  his  successor  Arundel,  and  lies  hard 
beside  him  in  the  nave  or  body  of  the  Church.”  2 

Arundel’s  chantry,  which  was  endowed  out  of  the 
rectory  of  Northflete,  was  served  by  two  secular  priests, 
to  each  of  whom  was  assigned  a stipend  of  ten  pounds 
a year,  and  a house  for  their  joint  occupation  was  built 
on  the  south  side  of  the  cathedral,  probably  on  the 
site  now  occupied  by  the  organist’s  house. 

One  purpose  for  which  this  chantry  was  founded  is 
"especially  worthy  of  note,  namely,  that  it  might  serve 
as  an  oratory  for  the  lay  folk  whenever  the  gates  in 
the  iron  grille,  which  extended  across  the  upper  end 
of  the  nave,  happened  to  be  closed.  The  lack  at  the 
present  day  of  any  side  chapel  in  the  nave  for  private 
prayer  is  greatly  to  be  regretted. 

Henry  Chicheley,  who  succeeded  Arundel  in  the 
primacy,  was  a personal  friend  of  King  Henry  V,  and 
a warm  supporter  of  that  monarch’s  ambitious  designs 

1 “ Antiquities  of  Canterbury,”  ed.  Battely,  Part  I.  136. 

2 Somner,  ut  supra,  p.  147. 


l9S 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

upon  the  French  crown.  The  priors  of  Christ  Church 
as  a rule  were  not  notorious  for  their  warlike  pro- 
clivities ; indeed,  they  too  often  seem  to  have  been 
anxious  to  shirk  their  responsibilities  in  the  matter  of 
national  defence ; but  on  the  eve  of  Agincourt  it 
would  seem  that  John  Wodensburgh  became  infected 
with  the  war  fever  which  was  raging  in  the  country,  for 
he  armed  his  retainers,  “ 16  spearmen  and  24  Bowmen, 
all  well  accoutred  and  furnished  with  complete  arms.”  1 

A few  months  later,  after  that  famous  victory  which 
dealt  so  hardly  with  the  chivalry  of  France,  the  King 
came  to  Canterbury  and  was  received  by  Archbishop 
and  Prior  in  the  cathedral  church,  where  he  paid  his 
devotions  at  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas.  Seven  years 
afterwards  his  dead  body  rested  for  a few  hours  within 
the  same  walls  on  its  way  to  Westminster.  The  King 
died  at  Bois  de  Vincennes  on  August  31, 1422,  and  the 
funeral  train  was  met  at  Dover  by  the  Archbishop 
and  fifteen  of  his  suffragans.  All  that  pomp  and 
pageantry  could  do  to  give  honour  to  the  great  soldier 
was  enlisted  on  the  occasion. 

The  funeral  car  was  covered  with  scarlet  silk  embroidered  with  gold, 
and  was  drawn  by  six  richly  caparisoned  horses.  Upon  the  car  besides 
the  coffin  was  a waxen  effigy  of  the  King  in  his  royal  robes.  Before  and 
behind  the  car  lamps  were  kept  burning ; and  in  front  on  each  side 
marched  heralds,  bearing  banners,  followed  by  two  hundred  and  fifty 
men  all  clad  in  white  surplices  and  carrying  lighted  torches.  Then 
followed  the  royal  household  in  deep  mourning,  and  several  hundred 
knights  and  esquires  in  black  armour,  with  plumes  in  their  helmets 
and  their  lances  reversed.  Next  came  the  princes  of  the  blood  and  the 
King  of  Scotland,  who  acted  as  chief  mourner.  To  this  grand  proces- 
sion the  Archbishop  and  his  suffragans  were  now  added ; and  in  the 
rear  of  all  followed  the  youthful  widow.  When  the  mournful  train 
reached  Canterbury  a halt  was  made,  and  masses  were  sung  from  the 
first  dawn  of  morning  till  nine  in  the  evening.  The  Archbishop 
accompanied  the  remains  of  his  royal  master  from  Canterbury  to  West- 
minster, and  there  consigned  his  body  to  the  tomb.2 

1 Somner,  ut  supra , p.  148. 

2 “ Chronological  History  of  Canterbury  Cathedral,”  by  G.  S., 
Canterbury,  1883. 

I96 


CH1LLENDEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 

The  untimely  death  of  his  patron  and  friend  had 
a deep  effect  upon  Chicheley.  It  is  said  that  on  his 
death-bed  he  felt  much  remorse  for  the  support  he 
had  given  to  a policy  which  had  resulted  in  so  much 
useless  bloodshed.  Perhaps  some  twinge  of  conscience 
already  began  to  assail  him,  for  the  King’s  death  was 
quickly  followed  by  preparations  for  his  own.  To 
this  end  he  caused  a magnificent  tomb  ( mausoleum 
sumfituosum)  to  be  erected  for  his  remains  in  his 
cathedral  church.  In  contemporary  records  Chiche- 
ley’s  tomb  is  described  as  lying  between  the  northern 
entrance  to  the  choir  and  the  reliquary  cupboard,  which 
at  that  time  occupied  the  space  now  filled  by  the  tomb 
of  Archbishop  Bourchier.  By  a composition  entered 
into  with  the  prior  and  convent,  the  latter  agreed  to 
say  masses  for  the  repose  of  the  Archbishop’s  soul  at 
the  altar  of  St.  Stephen  in  the  adjoining  transept  ; and 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  tomb  a rent-charge  of  seven 
pounds  a year  was  allotted  out  of  the  Archbishop’s 
newly  founded  college  of  All  Souls  in  Oxford.  Thus 
the  tomb  has  always  been  kept  by  the  Warden  and 
Fellows  of  that  college  in  its  pristine  condition,  and  is 
still  resplendent  with  colour  and  gilding.  It  must 
have  been  finished  as  early  as  the  year  1425,  since  a 
letter  from  the  Prior  to  the  Archbishop  dated  in  that 
year  gives  a curious  account  of  an  unseemly  disturbance 
.which  took  place  near  the  Archbishop’s  new  tomb 
during  divine  service.  A criminal,  one  Bernard  the 
goldsmith,  had  fled  for  refuge  to  the  cathedral,  and 
had  taken  sanctuary  within  the  iron  railings  of 
Chicheley’s  tomb,  whither  he  was  pursued  by  the 
citizens,  who  beat  him  with  cudgels  through  the  rails 
and  attempted  to  drag  him  out  while  high  mass  was 
being  sung.  For  this  sacrilegious  conduct  the  prior 
asks  for  redress.1 

The  effigy  upon  Chicheley’s  tomb  represents  the 
Archbishop  in  full  pontificals  upon  a table  supported 
1 Register  S,  £.  93. 


l97 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

by  three  arches  through  which  may  be  seen  an 
emaciated  cadaver  in  striking  contrast  to  the  effigy 
above.  It  is  to  be  feared  that  the  lesson  which  this 
arrangement  was  intended  to  teach  is  not  always  read 
aright  by  modern  pilgrims  ; for  a lady  from  Margate 
has  been  heard  to  protest  loudly  against  the  indignity 
offered  to  the  bishop’s  “ poor  wife  ” while  her  spouse 
lies  so  gloriously  arrayed  above  ! 

Of  Chicheley’s  activity  as  a represser  of  heresy — of 
which  there  is  abundant  evidence  elsewhere — the 
archives  of  the  church  contain  but  a solitary  instance, 
viz.  a letter  from  the  Prior  certifying  the  Archbishop 
that  two  Lollards  had  abjured  their  errors,  performed 
their  penance,  and  obtained  absolution.  The  penance 
consisted  of  walking  in  the  processions  of  their  respec- 
tive parish  churches  clad  only  in  shirt  and  breeches  and 
carrying  a lighted  taper  of  half  a pound  weight,  and  in 
visiting  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas  in  similar  attire. 

Prior  Wodensburgh,  the  author  of  the  above  letter, 
could  not  have  had  much  further  opportunity  for 
hunting  out  Lollards,  for  his  death  occurred  shortly 
afterwards,  viz.  on  February  28,  1428.  He  was  buried 
in  the  nave  of  the  church  at  the  feet  of  his  predecessor. 

The  priorate  of  William  Molash,  who  ruled  the 
house  for  ten  years  (1428-38),  was  marked  by  at 
least  one  important  addition  to  the  fabric  of  the 
church,  namely  the  rebuilding  of  the  south-western 
tower.  The  work  was,  indeed,  commenced  by  Wodens- 
burgh, but  the  greater  part  was  executed  in  Molash’s 
time,  who,  however,  did  not  carry  the  tower  up  to  its 
present  height.  The  fabric  rolls  relating  to  the  build- 
ing of  this  tower  show  that  the  ways  and  means 
adopted  for  raising  funds  were  singularly  like  those  in 
vogue  at  the  present  time  (1912)  for  its  repair.  Thus, 
although  an  annual  grant  was  made  from  the  corporate 
funds  of  the  Prior  and  Chapter,  outside  aid  was  largely 
relied  upon.  Then,  too,  there  were  voluntary  con- 
tributions from  the  citizens  of  Canterbury,  e.g.  William 
198 


CHILLENDEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 

Marsh  gives  20s.,  William  Lane  promises  20  marks  in 
four  years,  and  an  anonymous  friend  (de  quoclam  amico) 
subscribes  6s.  8d.  But  the  bulk  of  the  money  was 
obtained  in  response  to  a brief  issued  by  Archbishop 
Chicheley  for  “ the  new  work  in  the  cathedral  church 
of  Christ  in  Canterbury.”  From  this  source  more 
than  ^560  was  obtained.  There  is  also  a modern 
touch  in  the  fact  that  the  architect  was  a layman, 
one  Thomas  Mapylton,  who  did  not  reside  in  Can- 
terbury, but  paid  periodical  visits  while  the  work 
was  in  progress,  just  as  the  architect  of  the  Dean 
and  Chapter  does  to-day;  and  on  each  occasion  he 
received  a fee  {pro  opere  disponendo)  and  his  travelling 
expenses  ; while  Edward  Durant  acted  as  the  resident 
clerk  of  the  works.1  Stone  was  brought  in  barges 
from  Caen  in  Normandy  to  the  convent’s  quay  at 
Fordwich  ; from  the  north  of  England  ( ab  hominibus 
borealibus ) to  Monkton,  which  at  this  period  was 
apparently  accessible  to  the  sea  by  the  Wantsum 
Channel ; and  from  Merstham  in  Surrey.  The 
Merstham  stone  was  cheaper  than  the  Caen  stone, 
costing  4s.  per  ton,  against  6s.  for  the  Caen  stone, 
but  the  land-carriage  of  the  former  brought  the  price 
up  to  almost  the  same  figure. 

The  work  went  on  for  eleven  years  (1423-34),  but 
was  broken  off  before  the  topmost  story  was  reached, 
and  the  tower  was  left  unfinished  for  another  five-and- 
twenty  years.  In  the  year  1459  the  Bishop  of  Ross 
blessed  a great  bell  named  Dunstan  in  navi  ecclesie ,2 
which  doubtless  refers  to  the  lineal  ancestor  of  the 
bell  which  still  hangs  in  the  south-western  tower  and 
is  known  by  that  name.  So  that  we  may  assume  that 
at  the  above  date  the  tower  was  finished. 

The  ceremony  of  blessing  the  bell  took  place  when 
Thomas  Goldston  I was  Prior,  in  whose  obituary 

laEdwardo  Durant  pro  stipendio  suo  pro  supervisione  cxercendo 
circa  operarios.” 

2 “ Stone’s  Chronicle,”  C.  C.  C.  Camb.  f.  63. 


199 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

mention  is  made  of  his  good  work  in  completing  the 
tower.  Nevertheless,  the  greater  part  of  it,  including 
the  porch,  which  is  its  most  pleasing  feature,  was  carried 
out  under  the  auspices  of  Prior  Molash  and  Arch- 
bishop Chicheley,  and  from  the  latter’s  connection 
with  Oxford  as  the  founder  of  All  Souls  College  the 
tower  has  generally  been  called  the  “ Oxford  Steeple.” 

The  more  ambitious  work  of  rebuilding  the  great 
central  tower  seems  also  to  have  been  contemplated  by 
Molash,  and  even  put  in  hand,  since  John  Stone  records 
that  “ the  first  stone  of  the  new  work  of  the  Angel 
steeple  ” was  laid  on  August  4,  1433.  This  laying  of 
the  foundation-stone  must  refer  to  the  commence- 
ment of  an  outer  casing  built  round  the  Norman  tower, 
and  not  to  any  rebuilding  from  the  foundations,  since 
the  piers  had  already  been  strengthened  by  Chillenden, 
and  the  bells  continued  for  some  years  longer  to  hang 
in  the  old  tower ; moreover  the  spire  was  reshingled  at 
a considerably  later  date. 

It  was  in  connection  with  this  work  probably  that 
the  prior  and  convent  in  1435  engaged  the  services  of 
Richard  Beck,  master-mason.  By  the  terms  of  the 
agreement,1  Beck  undertook  “ to  do  the  governaunce, 
disposicion,  rewle  and  entendaunce  of  all  werkes 
of  the  C'hirche  ” in  return  for  a weekly  wage  of  4s.  ; 
“ a convenient  house,”  or  20s.  in  lieu  of  a house ; 
10s.  for  clothes,  “ if  the  prior  give  no  livery  ” ; and 
two  pair  of  hose,  as  long  as  he  could  do  his  work, 
or,  as  the  original  puts  it,  “ so  long  as  he  may  bestir 
himself,  see  and  walk.”  Should  he,  however,  become 
incapacitated,  a pension  of  2s.  a day  with  the  above 
allowances  was  to  be  granted  to  him  for  life.  From 
the  liberal  scale  on  which  he  was  remunerated  it  is 
clear  that  Beck  was  at  the  top  of  his  profession,  and 
this  supposition  receives  further  confirmation  from 
the  fact  that  soon  after  he  signed  the  above  agreement 
he  was  called  away  to  London  to  give  advice  to  the 
1 Cant.  MS.  L.  169. 


200 


CHILLENDEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 

mayor  and  aldermen  about  London  Bridge.  Perhaps 
Beck  did  not  have  much  opportunity  of  displaying  his 
talents  at  Canterbury,  since  within  a very  few  years 
after  his  engagement  the  Prior,  owing  to  pestilence 
and  famine  at  home  and  disaster  to  the  national  arms 
abroad,  was  compelled  to  stay  further  building  opera- 
tions and  “ put  away  his  masons.”  Our  authority  for 
this  is  a letter  from  a Christ  Church  monk  to  Cardinal 
Beaufort,  who  appears  to  have  been  closely  associated 
with  the  convent  of  Christ  Church  at  this  time.1  In 
1433  the  monks,  in  return  for  “ the  great  benefits  he 
had  conferred  upon  their  house,”  admitted  him  into 
confraternity  and  allotted  to  him  the  house  formerly 
known  as  Master  Omer’s,  which  now  became  known 
as  “ Le  Cardinallys  Place.”  2 

The  great  cardinal’s  interest  in  Canterbury  Cathedral 
was  doubtless  stimulated  by  the  fact  that  several  of 
his  kinsfolk  were  buried  within  its  walls.  His  half- 
brother,  King  Henry  IV,  had  found  a resting-place 
there  in  1413,  his  brother,  John  Earl  of  Somerset,  in 
1410,  and  his  nephew,  Thomas  Duke  of  Clarence,  in 
1421.  Somerset  and  Clarence,  who  were  the  succes- 
sive husbands  of  Margaret  Holland,  daughter  of  the 
Earl  of  Kent,  had  both  been  buried  in  St.  Thomas’s 
Chapel,  at  the  spot  now  occupied  by  the  monument  to 
Dean  Wotton.3  The  twice-widowed  duchess,  how- 
ever, was  anxious  to  erect  a stately  memorial  for 
dierself  and  her  two  husbands  within  the  cathedral 
church.  The  site  selected  was  the  chapel  of  St. 
Michael,  opening  out  of  the  south-west  transept. 
In  order  to  give  floor-space  for  a tomb  of  exceptional 
size  and  magnificence,  the  Norman  apsidal  chapel  was 
taken  down  and  rebuilt  on  a more  extended  scale,  with 
a rectangular  east  end,  probably  at  the  cost  of  the 
duchess,  whose  arms  with  those  of  her  two  husbands 
are  sculptured  on  the  vaulted  roof  of  the  chapel. 

1 Cant.  MS.  Letters,  Y.  143. 

2 Liter ce  Cantuarienses , R.S.,  vol.  i.  lxxxv.  3 Stone,  ut  supra,  £.  24 a. 

201 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

This  alteration  necessitated  the  disturbance  of  the 
tomb  of  Archbishop  Stephen  Langton,  who  had  been 
buried  before  the  altar  of  the  old  chapel,  and  his  coffin 
was  now  placed  under  the  altar  of  the  new  chapel, 
above  ground,  where  it  still  remains.  In  order,  how- 
ever, to  allow  the  coffin  to  be  placed  east  and  west 
without  projecting  inconveniently  from  the  western 
face  of  the  altar  it  was  necessary  to  thrust  its  foot 
through  the  eastern  wall — an  arrangement  which  led 
the  late  Professor  Willis  to  imagine  that  Langton 
had  been  buried  originally  in  the  churchyard,  and 
that  when  the  new  chapel  was  built  the  eastern  wall 
was  made  to  stride  over  the  coffin.1 

Here  then  the  duchess  was  permitted  to  erect  a 
tomb  of  Purbeck  marble  with  splendid  alabaster 
effigies  of  herself  and  her  two  husbands.  The  whole 
work  was  apparently  finished  by  December  1 8,  1439, 
when  William  Wellys, Bishop  of  Rochester,  hallowed  the 
altar.  Eleven  days  later  the  Duchess  of  Clarence  died  at 
the  convent  of  Bermondsey,  and  almost  immediately 
after  her  decease  the  Prior  received  a royal  mandate 
bidding  him  to  superintend  the  exhumation  of  the 
bodies  of  Somerset  and  Clarence  and  their  reinterment 
beside  that  of  the  duchess  in  St.  Michael’s  Chapel.2 

Above  the  chapel  is  a well-lighted  chamber,  having 
a vaulted  roof  on  the  keystones  of  which  are  three 
carved  heads  with  the  remains  of  three  inscrip- 
tions. Gostling,  in  whose  time  they  were  more 
legible  than  at  present,  says  : “ The  eastern  one  has 

Tho : prior ; the  middle  one  seems  to  have 

been  John  IVodensberg ; the  western  one,  William 
Molassch , discipulus .”  He  fills  up  the  blank  with 

Chillenden,  and  ascribes  the  entire  chapel  to  him  ; but 
there  is  no  mention  of  this  work  amongst  the  list  of 
Chillenden’s  good  deeds  ; and  the  architectural  style 
is  of  a somewhat  later  date.  In  order  to  find  another 
Prior  Thomas  we  have  to  move  on  to  1448,  when 
1 Willis,  op.  cit.  p.  129.  * Register  S,  f.  135. 


202 


CHILLENDEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 

Thomas  Goldston  I became  Prior.  In  his  days  there 
was  a John  Wodensburg  and  a William  Molash  in 
the  Convent,  so  it  seems  probable  that  this  room  was 
added  by  Prior  Goldston  I. 

We  may  now  pass  on  to  the  days  of  Goldston, 
omitting  the  short  priorates  of  John  Salisbury  and 
John  Elham,  which  were  uneventful  with  relation 
to  the  fabric  of  the  church,  with  the  exception 
of  the  erection  of  a small  chantry  chapel,  built  in 
1447  by  Dame  Joan  Brenchley  outside  the  south 
wall  of  the  nave,  and  entered  by  a door  beneath 
the  fourth  window  (counting  from  the  east).  The 
altar  of  this  chapel  was  dedicated  to  St.  John  the 
Baptist,  and  was  served  by  a secular  priest,  to  whom  a 
stipend  of  ten  pounds  a year  was  allotted  and  a house 
in  the  parish  of  St.  Alphege.  By  the  ordination  deed, 
masses  were  to  be  said  daily  here  for  the  good  estate 
of  King  Henry  VI  and  of  Queen  Margaret,  and  for 
the  repose  of  the  soul  of  the  founder’s  husband,  Sir 
William  Brenchley,  sometime  Chief  Justice  of  the 
Common  Pleas.  The  chantry  was  suppressed  with 
similar  foundations  when  the  priory  of  Christ  Church 
was  dissolved,  and  the  chapel  fell  into  a ruinous 
condition  until  it  was  repaired  by  Dean  Neville, 
early  in  the  seventeenth  century,  as  a burial-place  for 
himself  and  members  of  his  family.  Hence  it  became 
known  as  the  “ Neville  Chapel.”  For  some  reason 
which  is  not  apparent  the  windows  of  the  chapel  were 
walled  up  in  1715. 1 It  afterwards  became  a receptacle 
for  rubbish,  and  was  demolished  in  1787  when  the 
nave,  was  repaved. 

A far  more  important  piece  of  work  was  put  in  hand 
in  the  first  year  of  Goldston’s  priorate,  viz.  the  building 
of  a new  Lady  Chapel.  The  old  chapel  had  occupied 
(as  we  have  already  said)  the  two  eastern  bays  of  the 
north  aisle  of  the  nave.  The  site  chosen  for  the  new 

1 “For  making  fitt  to  sett  60  ft.  of  stone  to  close  up  ye  windows  in 
Nevill’s  Chapel,  £1  10s.”  Chapter  Accounts  Book,  sub  anno. 

203 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

one  was  that  of  the  old  apsidal  chapel  of  St.  Benedict 
opening  out  of  the  Martyrdom  transept.  The  first 
stone  was  laid  on  September  9,  1448,  and  by  January 
1450  the  walls  must  have  been  carried  up  some  distance, 
for  at  that  date  Sir  Henry  Gray,  Lord  Powys,  was  buried 
in  the  chapel.1  Before  the  end  of  1455  the  whole 
was  finished,  and  dedicated  in  honour  of  the  Assump- 
tion of  Our  Lady  and  St.  Benedict.  The  old  dedica- 
tion, however,  was  soon  forgotten,  and  henceforth  the 
chapel  appears  as  that  of  Our  Lady.2 

Mr.  St.  John  Hope  describes  the  Lady  Chapel  as 

a handsome  structure  of  two  bays,  with  a rich  fan  vault.  It  is 
entered  from  the  transept  by  a lofty  arch,  which  is  closed  by  a stone 
screen  of  beautiful  design  and  workmanship,  with  heavily  grated  traceried 
openings.  The  stalls  occupied  the  western  bay,  and  to  accommodate 
them  and  their  canopies  the  richly  ornamented  jambs  of  the  window 
arches  which  come  down  to  the  floor  have  been  ruthlessly  cut  away.  On 
the  north  side,  near  the  east  end,  is  a small  doorway,  now  blocked,  which 
led  into  the  narrow  space  between  the  chapel  and  the  Chapter-house. 
The  eastern  half  of  this  formed  the  atrium  or  vestry.3 

From  the  inventories  of  church  goods  taken  in  1540 
we  learn  that  the  chapel  was  furnished  with  a pair  of 
organs  and  one  large  desk  for  the  chaunters,  and  that 
all  the  hangings  and  vestments,  as  befitted  a chapel  of 
Our  Lady,  were  white. 

Prior  Goldston  I was  himself  buried  in  the  chapel 
in  1468,  where  his  memorial  slab  (bereft  of  its  brass 
effigy)  may  still  be  seen  ; it  is  in  the  eastern  bay,  the 
next  slab  but  one  to  the  north  wall. 

The  twenty  years  of  Goldston’s  priorate  were  full 
of  social  and  political  unrest.  In  1450  Jack  Cade  with 
four  thousand  of  the  commons  of  Kent  encamped  in  a 
field  between  the  churches  of  St.  Michael  Harbledown 
and  St.  Dunstan  outside  the  Westgate  ; and  although 
the  rebels  moved  off  towards  London  without  attacking 

1 Stone,  ut  supra , f.  41. 

2 “ Inventories  of  Christ  Church,”  Messrs.  Legg  and  Hope,  London, 
1902,  p.  163. 

3 Ibid.  op.  cit.  165-66. 

204 


CHILL ENDEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 

the  city,  the  country  manors  of  the  priory  suffered 
greatly  from  their  depredations.  Rumours  of  dis- 
loyalty penetrated  even  within  the  precinct  of  the 
church.  A poor  wretch  confined  in  the  prior’s  prison 
under  the  north  hall  confessed  that  he  had  heard 
Thomas  Gate  of  Birchington  say  “ that  the  King  is 
not  abyl  to  bere  the  fflour  de  lys  nor  the  schyp  in 
hys  nobyl  nor  in  hys  armys,”  and  that  the  Queen 
“ was  not  abil  to  be  queen  of  Ingland,  and  were  he  a 
pere  or  a lord  of  thys  realm  he  would  be  one  of  them 
that  shudde  help  to  putte  her  adown  for  because  that 
she  berith  no  child  and  because  that  we  have  no 
prins  in  this  land.” 

Although  in  the  struggle  between  York  and  Lan- 
caster Kent  suffered  less  severely  than  the  Midland 
counties,  the  civil  war  had  a very  disastrous  effect 
upon  trade  and  agriculture  generally,  and  upon  the 
finances  of  the  priory  of  Christ  Church  in  particular — 
a circumstance  which  is  especially  mentioned  in 
Goldston’s  obituary. 

We  should  have  expected  that  the  monks  would 
have  inclined  to  the  Lancastrian  cause,  for  the  pious 
Henry  VI  was  a familiar  figure  at  Canterbury,  whither 
he  would  ofttimes  come  afoot  and  make  his  offering 
at  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas  in  the  humble  garb  of  a 
pilgrim.  But  we  have  no  evidence  of  any  predilec- 
tions on  the  part  of  the  monks  of  Christ  Church.  As 
long  as  Henry  was  King  they  received  him  with  all 
honour,  but  they  were  quite  ready  to  transfer  their 
allegiance  to  the  Duke  of  York  when  by  force  of  arms 
he  had  won  the  crown.  Thus,  when  Henry  came  to 
Canterbury  (for  the  last  time  as  it  proved)  on  August  2, 
1460,  he  was  received  at  the  great  gate  of  the  priory  by 
Archbishop  Bourchier,  the  Bishop  of  Ely,  and  the 
Prior  and  convent  vested  in  green  copes.  To  the 
strains  of  an  anthem  beginning  Summce  Trinitati  he 
was  ushered  into  the  church,  where  Prior  Goldston 
celebrated  high  mass  and  (as  our  chronicler  relates 

205 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

with  evident  pride)  used  his  pastoral  staff,  although 
the  Archbishop  was  present.1  Bourchier’s  sympathies, 
however,  were  with  the  Duke  of  York,  on  whose  head 
he  placed  the  crown  of  England  less  than  twelve 
months  afterwards.  Four  years  later  (July  18,  1465), 
when  news  was  brought  to  Canterbury  that  Henry 
had  been  captured  in  Lancashire,  King  Edward  IV  and 
his  Queen  both  happened  to  be  in  the  city  at  the  time, 
and  Stone  relates  how  the  Archbishop  at  once  arranged 
for  a thanksgiving  service  in  the  cathedral,  at  which 
the  Te  Deum  was  sung  and  a sermon  preached  by  a 
secular  priest,  who  took  for  his  text  St.  John  vii.  23  : 
“ I have  made  a man  whole  on  the  Sabbath  day.” 
Both  King  and  Queen  were  present  at  the  sermon  and 
took  part  in  the  procession  to  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas 
which  followed  it.2  It  may  have  been  on  this  occasion 
that  the  King  determined  to  give  as  a thank-offering 
the  great  north  window  in  the  Martyrdom  transept, 
which  still  contains  portraits  of  himself,  his  Queen,  and 
his  children.  But  perhaps  it  is  more  likely  that  the 
window  was  erected  in  connection  with  the  jubilee  of 
1470,  when  it  is  recorded  that  multitudes  of  Yorkists 
flocked  to  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas  to  return  thanks 
for  the  help  the  saint  had  vouchsafed  to  their  cause. 

The  cessation  of  the  protracted  civil  war,  and  the 
stimulus  of  the  jubilee  of  1470,  which  was  attended 
by  an  unparalleled  number  of  pilgrims,  brought  a 
return  of  prosperity  to  the  convent  of  Christ  Church. 
So  that  when  William  Sellinge  became  Prior  in  1472 
the  financial  condition  of  the  house  had  so  far  improved 
that  building  operations  could  again  be  undertaken. 

Sellinge  deserves  to  be  commemorated  with  Eastry 
and  Chillenden  as  one  of  the  three  great  priors  of 
Christ  Church.  A native  of  the  village  of  Sellinge, 
near  Hythe,  where  his  parents  bore  the  surname  of 
Tilley,  he  entered  the  religious  life  as  a monk  of 
Christ  Church  in  1446,  and  in  due  course  was  sent  to 
1 Stone,  op.  cit.  £.  66b.  2 Ibid.  op.  cit.  f.  76#. 


206 


CH1LLENDEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 

Canterbury  College  in  Oxford.  In  1464  he  received 
permission  to  continue  his  studies  abroad,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  the  University  of  Bologna,  where  he  obtained 
the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity.  He  then  went  to 
Venice,  where  he  was  brought  into  contact  with  the 
pioneers  of  the  New  Learning,  and  studied  Greek 
in  company  with  Thomas  Linacre,  also  a native  of 
Kent,  who  afterwards  became  known  as  a celebrated 
physician. 

In  1470  Sellinge  returned  to  Canterbury,  bringing 
with  him  a number  of  books,  amongst  which  were 
several  MSS.  of  classical  works,  and  notably  a copy  of 
Cicero’s  De  Re-publica . Two  years  later  he  became 
prior,  and  during  his  twenty-two  years  of  office  not 
only  proved  himself  to  be  a capable  administrator  of 
the  little  world  within  the  Canterbury  cloister,  but 
on  more  than  one  occasion  was  able  to  show  his 
capacity  in  a wider  field,  when  employed  by  King 
Henry  VII  on  diplomatic  errands  abroad. 

Building  operations  seem  to  have  been  in  progress 
at  Christ  Church  throughout  Sellinge’s  priorate.  Thus 
in  his  obituary  it  is  recorded  that  he  rebuilt  the  city 
wall  between  the  churches  of  St.  Michael  Burgate  and 
St.  Mary  Queeningate — probably  in  1492,  when  this 
part  of  the  wall  was  surrendered  by  the  mayor  and 
commonalty  to  the  Prior  and  convent ; that  he  glazed 
the  south  aisle  of  the  cloister,  and  fitted  it  up 
with  wainscot  carrels  or  studies  for  the  use  of  the 
studious  brethren ; that  he  “ adorned  the  library  over 
the  prior’s  chapel  with  very  beautiful  carved  work  ” ; 
and  built  the  tower  or  prior’s  gateway  in  the  Green 
Court,  with  an  apartment  above  the  archway  to  serve 
as  a study  for  himself  and  his  successors. 

But  of  far  more  importance  than  the  above  was 
the  work  carried  out  under  Sellinge’s  auspices  on 
the  great  central  tower.  Exactly  when  this  work  was 
recommenced  is  not  recorded,  but  the  tower  must 
have  been  approaching  completion  shortly  before 
1 207 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Sellinge’s  death,  which  occurred  in  1494,  since  a letter 
is  extant  in  which  he  asks  Archbishop  Morton’s  advice 
about  the  form  of  the  pinnacles  of  the  new  tower. 
This  letter  is  so  quaint  and  curious  that  it  deserves  to 
be  quoted  at  length  : 

Most  Reverent  father  in  God,  and  my  most  singler  gode  Lorde,  after 
all  due  recommendation  and  humble  obediens  please  it  the  same  to 
understande  that  Master  Surveyor  and  I have  communed  with  John 
Wasted  your  mason,  berer  hereof  to  perceyve  of  hym  what  forme  and 
shappe  he  will  kepe  in  resyng  of  the  pynacles  of  your  new  towre  here : 
He  drew  unto  us  ij  patrons  of  hem.  The  one  was  with  doble  fineall 
withowte  crocketts,  and  the  other  was  with  croketts  and  single  fineall. 
Thys  ij  patrons  please  yl  your  gode  Grace  to  commaunde  the  seyd 
Jo  Wasted  to  draw  and  shew  hem  unto  you,  and  uppon  the  sycht,  your 
good  Grace  shew  him  your  advise  and  pleasure  whyche  of  them  ij,  or 
of  any  other  to  be  devised,  shad  contente  your  gode  Lordshyp  to  be 
appoynted.  And  furthermore  if  your  gode  Grace  wolde  require  the 
seyd  Jo  Wasted  so  to  do,  I think  that  he  might  provide  that  these 
pynacles  may  be  finished  and  accomplyshed  this  next  somer  folowing, 
the  whiche  if  it  mytt  be  so  then  your  toure  outwarde  shuld  appere  a 
werke  perfite. 

John  Wastell,  the  master-mason,  who  submitted 
these  alternative  designs  for  the  pinnacles,  was  also 
employed  a few  years  later  upon  the  erection  of  King’s 
College  Chapel  in  Cambridge.  He  was  therefore  doubt- 
less a craftsman  of  no  ordinary  skill  and  reputation. 
We  should  like  to  be  able  to  say  that  the  splendid 
central  tower  of  Canterbury  Cathedral,  which  was 
certainly  erected  under  his  supervision,  was  also  the 
product  of  his  brain.  But  the  fact  that  the  tower 
exhibits  an  architectural  style  considerably  earlier  than 
the  date  at  which  it  was  erected  makes  it  more  prob- 
able that  Wastell  worked  upon  plans  and  drawings 
prepared  when  the  work  was  first  put  in  hand  by 
Prior  Molash. 

However  this  may  have  been,  the  result  was 
eminently  satisfactory,  for  the  tower  has  scarcely  a 
rival  in  England  either  for  poetry  of  design  or  beauty 
of  proportion.1  Perhaps  it  may  come  as  a shock  to 

1 See  Fergusson’s  “ History  of  Architecture,”  vol.  ii.  p.  49. 


208 


The  Central  Tower  from  the  Cloister 


THE  MICHAELMAS  FAIR  IN  THE  PRECINCTS 

From  a Watfr-cotottp  Drawing  tn  thf  Cathedral  Library 


OH  ILLENDEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 


iome  people  to  learn  that  the  upper  part  of  the  tower 
(viz.  the  forty-five  feet  above  the  floor  of  the  “ Wheel- 
loft  ”)  is  constructed  of  brickwork,  but  such  is  the  case, 
the  outer  skin  alone  being  of  ashlar  stone  from  Caen 
and  Merstham. 

From  the  account  roll  relating  to  the  rebuilding  of 
the  towers  we  learn  that  480,000  “ redde  bryks  ” were 
employed  for  the  inside  work,  and  that  the  convent 
jbetween  Easter  1494  and  Michaelmas  1496  spent 
upon  the  tower  no  less  than  ^4035  16s.  3fd.,  a sum 
equivalent  to  more  than  .£50,000  at  the  present  day  ; 
and  in  addition  provided  out  of  their  own  stores  lead, 
nails,  ironwork,  and  paid  for  the  cartage  of  materials. 
The  turrets  at  the  angles  of  the  tower  are  solid,  with 
the  exception  of  that  at  the  south-western  corner, 
which  contains  a newel  staircase  leading  to  the  leads. 
Modern  pilgrims  who  make  the  toilsome  ascent  to  the 
top  are  sometimes  puzzled  to  account  for  the  extra- 
ordinary signs  of  wear  which  the  steps  show,  and  are 
disposed  to  form  the  conclusion  that  the  monks  spent 
much  of  their  time  in  tramping  up  and  down  the 
stairway.  The  real  solution,  however,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  fact  that  for  several  centuries  the  ascent  of  the 
tower  formed  one  of  the  attractions  of  the  great 
Michaelmas  fair  held  within  the  precincts.  The  porter 
of  the  Christ  Church  gate  reaped  a rich  harvest  of  fees 
fon-“  shewing  Bell-Harry  ” to  the  country  folk  at  fair 
time,  and  it  was  by  the  constant  tread  of  the  hob- 
nailed shoes  of  Giles  and  Joan  that  the  stone  steps 
were  worn  away.  At  length  the  dean  and  chapter 
resolved  to  abolish  the  practice,  and  at  their  St. 
Katherine’s  Chapter  in  1784  ordered  that  “ the  custom 
be  discontinued  of  admitting  the  rabble  (sic)  during 
the  fair  and  other  holiday  times  to  see  Bell-Harry.” 
In  lieu  of  his  perquisites  as  showman  the  porter  was  now 
granted  an  addition  to  his  salary.  But  the  fair  con- 
tinued to  be  held  in  the  precincts  until  the  year  1826. 

Sellinge  did  not  live  to  see  the  finishing  touches 

o 209 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

put  upon  the  great  work  which  had  been  in  progress 
throughout  his  priorate,  for  he  died  on  the  day  of  the 
martyrdom  of  St.  Thomas  (December  29),  1494,  and 
was  buried  in  the  north-west  transept  near  the  spot 
where  the  saint  fell. 

Prior  Thomas  Goldstone  II,  who,  with  the  assistance 
of  Archbishop  Morton,  brought  the  work  to  a happy  ! 
conclusion,  found  it  necessary  to  strengthen  the  tower 
piers.  This  was  done  by  inserting  buttressing  arches 
surmounted  by  substantial  bands  of  masonry  pierced 
with  trefoils  and  surmounted  by  an  embattled 
cornice.  Above  the  reticulated  work  of  the  arches 
between  the  western  piers  is  the  inscription  113011 

nobis  tDomine  non  nobis  set  nomini  tuo  Da 

gioriam,  with  the  Prior’s  rebus — three  gold-stones, 
flanked  by  the  letters  (£  and  Jj*).1 

The  space  between  the  northern  piers,  however, 
was  left  open,  probably  to  avoid  obscuring  the  view  of 
the  great  painted  window  in  the  north  transept.  But 
the  absence  of  support  here  has  caused  the  north-west  1 
pier  to  show  signs  of  weakness. 

Notwithstanding  the  great  beauty  and  commanding  i 
altitude  of  the  new  tower,  it  lacked  one  feature  which  . 
its  humbler  predecessor  had  possessed,  viz.  the  winged  ; 
figure  which  had  seemed  to  hover  over  the  spire  of 
the  Norman  church  and  which  so  many  generations  , 
of  pilgrims  had  hailed  from  afar  as  marking  the  goal  of 
their  hopes.  Perhaps  it  was  at  this  time  that  the 
image  of  St.  Michael  (pulled  down  by  the  Puritans  in 
the  seventeenth  century)  was  set  over  the  gable  of  the 
south-west  transept,  in  order  that  the  familiar  figure 
might  not  be  altogether  lacking.  From  old  associa- 
tion, the  new  tower  for  a time  continued  to  be  called 

1 In  the  Christ  Church  obituary  (Lambeth  MS.  20)  this  work  is 
ascribed  to  Thomas  Goldstone  II,  but  it  would  appear  that  his  pre- 
decessor, Thomas  Goldston  I,  did  something  towards  strengthening  j ; 
the  tower  piers,  since  there  is  an  entry  in  the  accounts  of  his  priorate 
relating  to  work  of  this  kind  : “ opera  nove  trabis  in  ecclesia — 1452.” 

210 


CH1LLEN  DEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 


the  “ Angel  steeple,”  and  modern  writers  have  advo- 
cated a reversion  to  the  name,  under  a mistaken  notion 
that  “Bell-Harry”  is  of  comparatively  recent  origin,  and 
connected  with  “ the  hateful  associations  ’’which  cling 
to  the  name  of  Henry  VIII.1  The  name,  however,  has 
nothing  to  do  with  that  arch-spoiler  of  churches, 

Ibut  is  derived  from  the  bell  which  hangs  on  the 
platform  at  the  top  of  the  tower.  The  present  bell 
was  cast  in  the  seventeenth  century,  but  the  sacrist’s 
accounts  show  that  a bell  named  “ Harry  ” had  a place 
in  the  central  tower  of  the  cathedral  many  years  before 
the  Tudor  dynasty  ascended  the  throne.  And  it 
is  probable  that  the  bell  was  the  gift  of  Prior 
Henry  of  Eastry,  whose  memory  well  deserves  to  be 
perpetuated  at  Canterbury. 

Besides  his  great  work  in  connection  with  the  com- 
pletion of  the  central  tower,  Prior  Thomas  Goldstone  II 
constructed  a new  subterranean  aqueduct  for  carrying 
off  the  rain-water,  which  for  want  of  proper  channels 
had  often  caused  the  crypt  to  be  flooded  in  wet 
weather. 

The  “ new  sewer,”  which  still  fulfils  its  original 
purpose,  was  carried  right  round  the  church  from  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  south  porch  to  the  necessarium 
in  the  Green  Court,  where  it  flushed  the  cloaca  before 
discharging  itself  into  the  city  ditch.  In  this  way  the 
j:rypt  was  rendered  much  drier,  and  it  is  probable  that 
at  this  date  many  of  its  Norman  windows  were  re- 
placed by  larger  ones  having  “ perpendicular  ” tracery, 
in  order  to  make  the  crypt  both  lighter  and  airier. 
At  any  rate,  the  doorway  leading  from  the  ambulatory 
beneath  the  prior’s  chapel  to  the  crypt  beneath  the 
south-east  transept  was  inserted  at  this  time,  for 
Goldstone’s  arms  are  carved  above  the  lintel. 

The  beautiful  gateway  in  the  south-western  corner 
of  the  precincts,  now  known  as  the  “ Christ  Church 
Gate,”  was  also  built  in  the  days  of  Thomas  Goldstone  II. 
1 “ Canterbury,”  by  Dr.  J.  C.  Cox,  London,  1905,  p.  192. 


2 1 1 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

There  had  been  a gate  on  this  site  as  early  as  the 
reign  of  Henry  III,  but  the  original  gate  (the  vetus 
forta  of  the  Norman  drawing)  stood  a little  further 
to  the  east — directly  opposite  to  the  south  door  of  the 
church.1 

Goldstone’s  gateway  is  built  of  Caen  stone,  elabo- 
rately panelled  and  carved  upon  its  southern  front, 
the  details  of  which  have  been  compared  with  those  used 
in  Henry  VIPs  Chapel  at  Westminster — a contem- 
porary work.  This  south  front  is  now  in  a sadly 
dilapidated  state.  Its  condition  is,  however,  not  solely 
due  to  the  corroding  hand  of  Time,  since,  in  addition 
to  the  iconoclastic  zeal  of  the  Puritans  in  the  seven- 
teenth century,  the  carved  work  was  “ savagely 
mutilated  ” by  the  partisans  of  the  consort  of  King 
George  IV  because  (as  Felix  Summerby  relates)  “ it 
was  not  illuminated  in  honour  of  a Queen,  and  was 
illuminated  in  honour  of  a King.”  2 

A few  years  earlier  the  appearance  of  the  gate  had 
been  in  a measure  spoilt  by  the  removal  of  the  tops 
of  the  octagonal  flanking  turrets,  which  were  carried 
up  originally  above  the  embattled  parapet.  This  was 
done  by  order  of  the  dean  and  chapter,  and — according 
to  popular  tradition — for  no  better  reason  than  to 
afford  a view  of  the  cathedral  clock  from  the  upper  end 
of  Mercery  Lane  ! 

The  two  stories  of  chambers  over  the  archway 
were  allotted  to  one  of  the  six-preachers  as  a residence 
after  the  suppression  of  the  monastery,  but  the  rooms 
are  now  used  as  a depository  for  the  documents  of 
the  diocesan  registry. 

1 The  exact  position  of  the  vetus  porta  is  stated  by  Somner  to  be 
“ 5 rods  eastward  from  the  new  gate.” 

In  1453  the  sacrist  exchanged  a house  in  Burgate  Street,  which  had 
long  been  known  as  the  old  gate  ( ab  antiquo  nuncupato  vetus  porta),  for 
another  tenement  in  the  parish  of  St.  Mary  Bredman.  In  Somner’s 
time  portions  of  the  old  gate  built  into  this  house  were  still  visible. 
Christ  Church  MS.  Y.  A.  15. 

2 “ Handbook  of  Canterbury,”  1833. 


212 


CHRIST  CHURCH  GATE 

From  a Dravvinc  bv  J.  M.  Turner,  R.A 


CHILLENDEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 

The  gateway  was  not  quite  finished  during  Gold- 
stone’s  lifetime,  for  he  left  by  will  a sum  of  money  for 
its  completion  ; but  inasmuch  as  Somner  records  that 
in  his  day  the  following  inscription  was  carved  upon 
the  southern  front,  Jt)0C  OPU0  COtfiSttUCtUttt  C0t 

anno  Domini  miiesimo  quingentissimo  Decimo 

septimo,  it  is  clear  that  the  work  should  be  ascribed 
to  Goldstone’s  priorate. 

Thomas  Goldstone  II  died  September  1 6,  1517,  and 
was  buried  in  the  Martyrdom.  Among  his  benefac- 
tions the  Christ  Church  obituary  records  that  he  gave 
new  service  books  of  great  value  and  beauty  for  use  in 
the  choir;  an  analogium  or  desk  of  brass,  fashioned 
like  an  eagle,  which  was  probably  used  for  the  music 
books  of  the  Rulers  of  the  choir  ; a set  of  arras  hangings 
with  the  story  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  for  the 
adornment  of  the  south  side  of  the  choir  on  principal 
feasts  ; several  richly  embroidered  vestments ; and 
divers  ornaments  for  use  in  the  prior’s  chapel.  From 
the  same  source  we  learn  that  when  St.  Dunstan’s 
tomb  was  opened  in  1508,  Goldstone  caused  a silver 
reliquary  to  be  fashioned  in  the  shape  of  a human  head, 
in  which  he  placed  a portion  of  the  saint’s  skull.1 
This  “ scrutiny  ” of  the  shrine  of  St.  Dunstan  (as  the 
monks  called  the  opening  of  the  tomb)  was  the  out- 
come of  a correspondence  between  Archbishop  Warham 
and  the  abbot  of  Glastonbury,  in  which  the  Arch- 
Tishop  upheld  the  claim  of  the  monks  of  Christ  Church 
against  the  Glastonbury  tradition,  which  alleged  that 
the  saint’s  relics  had  been  removed  to  the  West  Country 
house  in  1011,  when  Canterbury  was  sacked  by  the 
Danes.  In  order  to  set  the  matter  at  rest  the 
saint’s  tomb  was  opened  on  April  22,  1508,  and 
within  the  leaden  coffin  the  remains  of  a man  were 
found  arrayed  in  full  pontificals,  and  also  a small  leaden 

1 St.  Augustine’s  Abbey  had  a “ head  ” of  St.  Augustine  : “ de 
oblacionibus  factis  ad  caput  Sci  Augustini,  4 /t.”  Accounts  of  the 
Vestibularius , 1521.  Christ  Church  MS.  E.  23. 


213 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

plate  bearing  the  inscription  hic  requiescit  sanctus 
dunstanus  archiepiscopus.  As  this  appeared  to  be 
conclusive  evidence  that  St.  Dunstan’s  body  was  still 
at  Canterbury,  Warham  politely  notified  the  discovery 
to  the  abbot,  and  at  the  same  time  expressed  the  hope 
that  no  more  would  be  heard  about  the  pretensions  of 
Glastonbury.  The  abbot’s  reply  is  curious.  He  was 
constrained  to  admit  that  proof  had  been  given  that 
the  church  of  Canterbury  possessed  the  greater  part 
of  the  saint’s  relics,  but  he  still  maintained  that  a 
fragment  or  two  might  well  be  preserved  in  the 
Glastonbury  shrine.  At  all  events,  he  hoped  that  the 
archbishop  would  not  bruit  the  matter  abroad,  since 
the  West  Country  shrine  was  much  venerated,  and  he 
feared  that  if  the  cherished  belief  of  the  country  folk 
was  rudely  shattered  a public  commotion  might 
ensue.1 

A slight  structural  addition  to  the  fabric  of  the 
cathedral  church  made  when  Goldstone  II  was  prior 
was  the  chantry  chapel  which  Archbishop  Warham, 
soon  after  his  election  to  the  primacy,  caused  to  be 
erected  in  connection  with  his  tomb.  By  a formal 
deed  dated  April  6,  1507,  the  prior  and  convent 
granted  to  the  archbishop  a place  of  sepulture  “ near 
the  chapel  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  on  the  north 
side  . . . and  close  to  the  spot  where  the  holy  Thomas 
suffered  martyrdom  . . . together  with  a certain 
oratory  or  chapel,”  adjoining  thereto.2  The  chantry 
chapel  was  built  in  the  slype  or  passage  between  the 
north  wall  of  the  Martyrdom  transept  and  the  south 
wall  of  the  Chapter-house,  and  was  reached  through  a 
door  at  the  east  end  of  the  tomb,  which  was  placed  in 
a recess  in  the  north  wall  of  the  transept.  This  door- 
way (blocked  up)  may  be  seen  in  Dart’s  view  published 

1 An  account  of  the  scrutiny  is  printed  in  Wharton’s  Anglia 
Sacra , vol.  ii.  p.  227,  &c.  The  full  text  is  given  in  Christ  Church, 
Canterbury,  MS.  E.  27  and  Register  R,  ff.  1 S3— 88. 

2 Register  T,  f.  586. 

214 


CHILLENDEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 

in  1726,  but  early  in  the  last  century  some  meddlesome 
“ restorers  ” obliterated  all  traces  of  it,  and  removed 
the  Archbishop’s  monument  to  the  centre  of  the 
recess. 

Warham’s  chantry  must  have  been  finished  by  Sep- 
tember 4,  1507,  for  on  that  day  its  altar  was  hallowed 
by  Dr.  John  Thornton,  prior  of  Dover  and  assistant 
bishop  to  Archbishop  Warham,  in  honour  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin  Mary  and  St.  Margaret.  The  chapel, 
which  was  served  by  secular  priests,  was  swept  away 
together  with  similar  foundations  soon  after  the  sup- 
pression of  the  priory,  but  its  exact  dimensions  can 
be  traced  in  the  passage  between  the  transept  and  the 
Chapter-house. 

Thomas  Goldwell — his  name  bears  a singular  re- 
semblance to  that  of  his  predecessor — was  professed 
in  1493,  and  became  prior  of  Christ  Church  twenty 
years  later.  He  belonged  to  an  old  Kentish  family 
which  had  long  been  in  possession  of  the  manor  of 
Goldwell  in  the  parish  of  Great  Chart,1 2  and  after 
adopting  the  Benedictine  habit  he  had  spent  some  time 
in  studying  at  the  Universities  of  Paris  and  Louvain. 
When  he  became  prior  there  was  nothing  in  the 
political  atmosphere  which  foreshadowed  the  great 
storm  which  was  to  remould  society  on  an  altered  basis 
and  sweep  the  monastic  system  out  of  the  land. 
Nothing  probably  was  further  from  his  thoughts  than 
-'that  he  would  be  the  last  prior  of  Christ  Church. 

The  first  mutterings  of  the  storm  were  heard  seven 
years  later,  when  Cardinal  Wolsey  in  1524  obtained  a 
licence  from  Pope  Clement  VIII  to  suppress  those 
small  religious  houses  which  had  less  than  seven 
inmates  and  to  devote  their  revenues  to  the  purposes 

1 For  Warham’s  chantry,  see  “ Inventories  of  Christ  Church,  Canter- 
bury,” of.  cit.  pp.  136-48. 

2 John  Goldwell,  Bishop  of  Norwich  1472-99,  was  probably  the 
Prior’s  uncle ; and  Thomas  Goldwell,  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph  in  the  reign 
of  Mary  Tudor,  may  have  been  his  nephew. 

215 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

of  education.  This  was  the  first  touch  of  the  besom 
of  destruction,  and  the  greater  monasteries,  although 
they  offered  no  protest  on  behalf  of  their  weaker 
brethren, were  not  unmindful  of  its  possible  significance, 
“ justly  fearing  that  the  King  would  fell  the  oaks  when 
the  cardinal  began  to  cut  the  underwood.”  Amongst 
the  tenants  of  the  Christ  Church  estates  there  were 
certainly  some  premonitions  of  what  was  coming,  for 
those  of  them  who  held  leases  for  lives  were  now  very 
active  in  getting  favourable  terms  of  renewal.  It  was 
an  unfortunate  circumstance  for  the  prestige  of  their 
house  that  at  this  juncture  certain  of  the  Christ  Church 
monks  became  mixed  up  in  the  affair  of  the  “ Holy 
Maid  of  Kent.” 

Elizabeth  Barton,  a maid-servant  in  the  household 
of  a Kentish  yeoman  living  at  the  hamlet  of  Court-at- 
Street,  near  Aldington,  began  about  the  year  1528  to 
dream  dreams  and  to  see  visions.  Her  alleged  revela- 
tions attracted  the  attention  of  the  rector  of  the 
parish  and  of  Dr.  Bocking,  the  warden  of  the  Christ 
Church  manors,  by  whom  the  maid  was  brought  to 
Canterbury,  where  she  was  lodged  in  the  nunnery  of 
Sepulchre.  Here,  unfortunately  for  herself  and  her 
abettors,  her  vaticinations  took  the  form  of  prophesy- 
ings  as  to  what  would  happen  to  the  King  if  he  pro- 
ceeded with  the  divorce  upon  which  he  was  now 
expending  all  his  energies. 

Prior  Goldstone  seems  to  have  been  careful  not  to 
commit  himself  in  the  matter,  but  Archbishop 
Warham  showed  the  maid  some  countenance,  and 
Dr.  Bocking  and  Richard  Dering,  the  cellarer  of 
Christ  Church,  were  her  constant  associates.  Warham 
died  before  the  attainder  of  the  nun,  but  Bocking 
and  Dering  were  included  in  the  bill,  and  ended 
their  lives  on  the  scaffold.  For  the  part  taken  by 
some  of  its  members  in  this  unfortunate  affair  the  con- 
vent sought  to  appease  the  King  by  a gift  of  money 
and  through  Archbishop  Cranmer  offered  to  pay  “ two 
216 


CHILLENDEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 

or  three  hundred  pounds  ” for  a general  pardon,  though, 
as  Cranmer  pointed  out,  the  house  was  “ not  afore- 
hand,  but  in  debt  except  the  church  ornaments  and 
plate.”  1 But  neither  this  offer  nor  the  ready  com- 
pliance with  which  the  Prior  and  monks  of  Christ 
Church  signed  the  acknowledgment  of  the  royal 
supremacy  2 could  avert  their  fate.  In  the  following 
year  (1534)  Dr.  Layton,  one  of  the  Commissioners 
appointed  to  inquire  into  the  condition  of  religious 
houses  south  of  the  Trent,  arrived  at  Canterbury 
where  he  quartered  himself  on  the  prior.  What  fol- 
lowed may  best  be  described  in  his  own  words.  In  a 
letter  addressed  to  Thomas  Cromwell,  Layton  writes : 

This  Saturday  night  I came  to  Canterbury  to  Christ  Church.  At 
one  of  the  clock  after  midnight  one  of  my  servants  called  me  up  suddenly, 
or  else  I had  been  burned  in  my  bed.  The  great  dining  chamber  called 
the  King’s  lodging,  where  we  supped,  and  whereat  the  bishop  of 
Winchester  lay  the  day  before  I came,  was  suddenly  fired  by  some 
firebrand  or  snuff  of  a candle  that  first  set  the  rushes  on  fire.  My 
servants  lying  nigh  the  said  lodging  were  almost  choked  in  their  beds, 
and  so  called  me.  And  anon,  after  I found  a back  door  out,  called  up 
the  house,  and  sent  into  the  town  for  help,  and  before  ladders  and  water 
could  be  got  that  great  lodging  was  past  recovery,  and  so  was  the 
chamber  where  I lay.  Three  chambers  only  are  burnt,  called  the  new 
lodging,  or  the  King’s  lodging.  The  gable  ends  of  the  house,  made  of 
strong  brick,  kept  in  the  fire  from  the  houses  adjoining,  with  the  help 
of  men,  so  that  no  harm  was  done  but  in  that  lodging.  As  soon  as  I 
had  set  men  to  squench,  and  to  labour,  I went  into  the  church  and 
there  tarried  continually,  and  set  four  monks  with  bandogs  to  keep  the 
jhrine,  and  put  the  sexton  in  the  revestry  there  to  keep  the  jewels,  and 
walked  continually  in  the  church  above,  and  set  monks  in  every  quarter 
of  the  church  with  candles,  and  sent  for  the  abbot  of  St.  Augustine’s 
to  be  there  with  me  in  readiness  to  have  taken  down  the  shrine,  and  to 
have  sent  all  the  jewels  to  St.  Augustine’s. 

The  treasures  of  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas,  however, 
were  not  destined  to  go  to  St.  Augustine’s,  but  into 
the  King’s  coffers.  Three  years  after  Layton’s 
disastrous  visit  (1538)  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury  was 

1 Calendar  of  State  Papers,  vi.  1519. 

2 It  was  tendered  to  the  monks  of  Christ  Church  in  1534,  and  signed 
by  the  Prior  and  sixty-nine  of  the  brethren  apparently  without  demur. 

217 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

declared  a traitor,  his  name  expunged  from  the 
Church’s  calendar,  his  splendid  shrine  destroyed,  and 
the  precious  metal  and  jewels  with  which  it  was 
adorned  carried  off  to  London.  Dr.  Gasquet  has 
given  the  following  summary  of  the  contents  of  the 
roll  upon  which  the  things  taken  for  the  King’s  use 
are  recorded  : 

The  gold  was  no  less  than  4994I  ounces ; the  gilt  plate  weighed 
4425  ; the  parcel  gilt  840  ; and  the  plain  silver  5286.  At  a subsequent 
date  twenty-six  ounces  of  gold  with  4090  of  silver-gilt  or  plain  were 
added  to  the  spoils.  Besides  the  above  and  the  jewels  of  which  there 
is  no  record,  there  were  carried  away  to  London  four  precious  mitres, 
two  of  silver-gilt  overworked  with  pearls  and  precious  stones  ; a wooden 
throne  covered  at  the  parts  called  pommels  with  crimson  velvet,  and 
the  handles  of  silver-gilt ; and  a crozier  ornamented  with  silver,  called 
Thomas  Becket’s  staff.  Further,  besides  a number  of  fastenings  for 
copes  of  gold,  and  precious  stones,  nine  pontifical  rings,  and  a golden 
shell  adorned  with  divers  precious  stones,  there  were  taken  for  the  King 
eleven  copes  of  gold  cloth,  called  “ gold  Bawdekin.”  Of  these,  ten 
were  white  with  the  arms  of  John  Morton,  formerly  Archbishop,  and 
the  eleventh  was  ornamented  with  red  roses.  Also  one  covering  for  the 
upper  part  of  an  altar  of  white  and  red  velvet  splendidly  worked.  These, 
with  other  things,  formed  the  plunder  which  Henry  gathered  into  his 
treasure-house  “ from  the  goods  of  the  late  monastery  of  Christ  Church, 
Canterbury.”  1 

The  actual  deed  of  the  surrender  of  the  priory  has 
not  come  to  light,  but  a commission  dated  March  20, 
1540,  was  directed  to  Thomas  Cranmer,  the  Arch- 
bishop, Sir  Richard  Rich,  Chancellor  of  the  Court  of 
Augmentations,  Sir  Christopher  Hales,  Master  of  the 
Rolls,  and  six  other  persons,  empowering  them  to 
receive  the  surrender  of  the  Prior  and  convent  of 
Christ  Church,  Canterbury.  Out  of  the  fifty-three 
monks  who  were  inmates  of  the  house  at  the  time  of 
the  suppression,  twenty-eight  became  members  of  the 
new  collegiate  foundation  and  twenty-three  departed 
the  house  with  pensions.  Amongst  the  latter  was 
Prior  Goldwell.  When  the  coming  changes  were  first 
reported  at  the  monastery,  Goldwell  protested  that 

1 “ Henry  VIII  and  the  English  Monasteries,”  London,  1902,  vol.  ii. 
p.  4.08,  & c. 

218 


CHILLENDEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 

he  would  never  forsake  his  habit.  Thus,  in  a letter 
addressed  to  Cromwell  (August  20,  1538),  two  years 
before  the  surrender,  he  wrote  : 

There  is  a common  speaking  here  . . . that  religious  men  shall  leave 
or  forsake  their  habits,  and  go  as  secular  priests  do.  ...  As  concerning 
this  matter  your  lordship  has  been  so  good  unto  me  that  you  have 
sent  me  word  before  this  time  that  I and  my  brethren  should  not  be 
constrained  to  do  so.  And  as  for  my  part,  I will  never  desire  to  forsake 
my  habit  as  long  as  I live,  for  divers  considerations  that  move  me  to 
the  same.  One  is  because  religious  men  have  been  and  continued  in 
this  our  church  these  900  years  and  more  also.  I made  my  profession 
to  serve  God  in  a religious  habit  as  much  as  lay  in  me  so  to  do.  Also 
if  we  that  be  religious  men  do  forsake  our  habits,  and  go  about  the  world, 
we  shall  have  many  more  occasions  to  offend  God  and  to  commit  sin 
than  we  now  have.  For  this  and  other  considerations  which  your 
lordship  knoweth  better  than  I,  I beseech  your  lordship  to  continue 
good  lord  to  us,  me  and  my  brethren,  that  we  may  keep  our  habits  of 
religion  still. 1 

But  two  years  later,  when  it  became  clear  that  the 
title  of  nine  hundred  years  would  not  save  his  house 
from  sharing  the  fate  of  similar  foundations,  Gold- 
well’s  heart  failed  him.  It  would  be  too  much  to 
leave  the  great  church,  and  the  pleasant  lodging  he 
had  occupied  for  two-and-twenty  years.  Why  should 
he  not  stay  on  as  the  first  dean  of  the  new  collegiate 
church  ? Cranmer,  it  was  true,  was  not  favourably 
disposed  towards  him,  but  he  would  try  what  could 
be  done  with  Cromwell.  And  so  to  the  all-powerful 
Minister  he  wrote  the  following  pathetic  letter  begging 
him  to  remain  his  friend 

specially  now  in  the  change  of  the  religion  of  this  cathedral  church 
from  prior  and  convent  into  dean  and  canons.  For  I am  informed  [he 
continues]  that  such  as  be,  or  shall  be,  assigned  and  appointed  by  the 
King’s  Majesty  to  be  Commissioners  for  the  said  change  of  the  said 
church  of  Canterbury,  shall  be  at  the  same  church  within  a little  time. 
And  of  the  which  Commission  my  lord  of  Canterbury,  as  I hear,  shall 
be  the  chief  (who  is  not  so  good  a lord  unto  me  as  I would  he  were) 
Wherefore,  without  your  especial  lordship,  I suppose  my  lord  of  Canter- 
bury will  put  me  to  as  much  hindrance  as  he  can  ; and  also  I have 

1 “ Cromwell  Correspondence,”  P.R.O.  V.  f.  96,  quoted  by  Dr. 
Gasquet  in  “ Henry  VIII  and  the  English  Monasteries,”  p.  472,  &c. 

219 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

heard  of  late  that  my  brother  the  warden  of  the  manors,  Dr.  Thorneden» 
is  called  in  my  lord  of  Canterbury’s  house,  “ Dean  of  Christchurch  in 
Canterbury.”  This  office  of  dean  by  favour  of  your  good  lordship  I 
trusted  to  have  had,  and  as  yet  trust  to  have.  I have  been  prior  of 
the  said  church  above  22  years,  wherefore  it  would  be  much  displeasure 
to  me  in  my  age  to  be  put  from  my  chamber  and  lodging,  which  I 
have  had  all  these  22  years.  It  hath  also  been  shown  unto  me  that  my 
lord  of  Canterbury  at  his  coming  to  the  said  church  will  take  from  me 
the  keys  of  my  chamber,  and  if  he  do  I doubt  whether  I shall  have 
the  same  keys  or  chamber  again  or  not.  . . . And  whereas  it  pleased 
your  good  mind  towards  me  to  write  unto  me  of  late,  by  your  letters, 
that  I should  have  my  said  chamber  with  all  commodities  of  the  same 
as  I have  had  in  times  past,  the  which  your  said  writing  to  me  was,  and 
is,  much  to  my  comfort.  And  with  the  favour  of  your  lordship  I 
trust  so  to  have  for  the  term  of  my  life,  which  term  of  my  life  by  course 
of  nature  cannot  be  long,  for  I am  above  the  age  of  62  years.”  1 

But  Goldwell’s  hope  of  becoming  the  first  dean  of 
Canterbury  was  doomed  to  disappointment,  for  Dr. 
Nicholas  Wotton  was  nominated  to  the  office  in  the 
incorporation  charter  of  the  new  foundation.  He 
might  have  had  a prebendal  stall,  but  he  doubtless  felt 
that  he  could  not  accept  a subordinate  position  where 
for  twenty-two  years  he  had  ruled  supreme.  He 
therefore  preferred  to  take  his  pension  and  go.  The 
sum  allotted  to  him,  namely,  eighty  pounds  per  annum, 
was  quite  adequate  for  his  maintenance,  for  in  pur- 
chasing power  it  was  equivalent  to  at  least  one  thousand 
pounds  at  the  present  day,  and  the  ex-prior  continued 
to  enjoy  it  until  the  day  of  his  death,  which  occurred 
in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary  (1555), 
fifteen  years  after  his  exile. 

The  fall  of  the  great  Benedictine  house  attached  to 
the  cathedral  and  metropolitical  Church  of  Christ  in 
Canterbury  may  be  regarded  as  the  final  debacle  of 
monasticism  in  England. 

The  system  [as  a modem  writer  has  well  said]  was  not  judged  and 
condemned  on  its  fundamental  principles,  or  on  account  of  the  faults 
of  its  members,  but  because  there  was  a wave  of  revolt  against  the 
ancient  system  of  government  in  Church  and  State  ; because  there 

1 “ Cromwell  Correspondence,”  P.R.O.,  V.  f.  96,  i.  82. 

220 


CHI  LLEN  DEN  TO  DISSOLUTION 

was  an  outburst  of  mental  and  spiritual  liberalism ; and  because  the 
King  lusted  after  the  temporal  possessions  of  the  monasteries.  . . . 
The  accusations  against  the  moral  character  of  the  monks  were  made 
in  order  that  men  might  welcome  the  dissolution  of  the  monasteries. 
But  the  charges  were  for  the  most  part  baseless.  The  evidence  of  the 
Visitors  of  Henry  VIII  breaks  down  when  carefully  examined.  The 
Visitors  themselves  were  men  of  far  from  unblemished  character.  Their 
testimony,  such  as  it  was,  only  applied  to  a very  small  proportion  of 
the  houses  accused.  . . . No  witnesses  ever  seem  to  have  been  pro- 
duced, nor  in  any  case  do  the  monks  appear  to  have  been  allowed  to 
answer  to  the  charges  brought  against  them.  ...  A great  wrong  has 
been  done,  knowingly  or  unknowingly,  to  the  memory  of  a multitude 
of  men,  who,  with  rare  exceptions,  according  to  their  lights,  seem  on 
the  whole  to  have  done  their  duty  well  and  faithfully.  . . . Several 
centuries  have  elapsed  since  the  monk  was  first  forcibly  ejected  from 
his  home,  and  until  recent  years  he  has  found  no  defender  chivalrous 
enough  to  speak  a word  in  his  defence.  ...  It  is  only  fair,  now  that 
the  real  story  is  better  known,  that  we  should  teach  our  children  to 
look  on  the  large  majority  of  these  helpless  men  and  women  as  victims 
deserving  our  pity  and  respect,  rather  than  as  guilty  culprits  who  met 
with  a righteous  doom.  . . . Nothing  can  ever  obliterate  or  even  dull 
the  memory  of  the  splendour  of  the  work  done  by  the  monastic  orders.3 

C.  E.  W. 

1 Quarterly  Review,  July  1895. 


221 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  INTERIOR  LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERY 

As  some  beautiful  broken  seashell  may  stir  us  to 
wonder  of  what  unfamiliar  life  it  was  at  once  the 
product  and  the  home,  so  it  is  with  the  ruins  of  a 
mediaeval  monastery.  VVe  want  a key  to  the  meaning 
of  these  grey  deserted  cloisters,  these  broken  arches, 
these  roofless  and  half-fallen  chambers.  It  is  the 
purpose  of  this  chapter  to  provide  such  a key  by 
sketching  the  daily  life  and  domestic  economy  of  the 
monks  who  dwelt  around  the  cathedral  and  metro- 
political  church  of  Christ  in  Canterbury,  and  kept 
up  an  unbroken  strain  of  prayer  and  praise  within  its 
walls  for  more  than  nine  centuries. 

Like  the  inmates  of  all  other  cathedral  monasteries 
in  England,  the  monks  of  Christ  Church  traced  their 
parentage  to  St.  Benedict  (480-543),  the  true  patriarch 
or  founder  of  the  “ Monks  of  the  West.”  It  was  the 
genius  and  practical  wisdom  of  Benedict  of  Nursia 
which  first  tempered  the  austerities  of  the  East  into 
some  relation  to  the  requirements  of  human  nature, 
and  added  to  prayer,  meditation,  and  discipline  the 
duty  of  wholesome  and  useful  work,  so  that  the  houses 
under  his  Rule  became  not  only  refuges  from  the 
world,  but  homes  of  learning,  schools  of  agriculture, 
nurseries  of  the  arts  and  crafts.  So  rapid  was  the 
rise  of  the  Order  that  already  at  the  end  of  the  sixth 
century  a Benedictine  Pope,  Gregory  the  Great, 
selected  for  the  conversion  of  England  Augustine, 
prior  of  the  Benedictine  convent  of  St.  Andrew  at 
Rome.  Thus  both  the  great  monastic  houses  in 
222 


LIFEOF  THE  MONASTERY 

Canterbury — the  priory  of  Christ  Church  and  the 
abbey  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul  (afterwards  called  after 
its  founder,  St.  Augustine) — belonged  to  the  Order 
of  the  Black  Monks  of  St.  Benedict.  We  have  already 
shown  how  the  high  ideals  of  St.  Benedict  became 
obscured  and  even  obliterated  at  Canterbury  during 
the  Saxon  dynasty,  and  how  the  Order  was  revived 
by  the  constructive  genius  of  Archbishop  Lanfranc, 
under  the  fostering  aegis  of  the  Conqueror,  who  thought 
that  the  Benedictine  communities  might  serve  as  centres 
of  Norman  influence.  All  this  has  been  dealt  with  in  a 
previous  chapter,  and  it  now  remains  to  give  a brief 
sketch  of  the  internal  economy  of  Benedictine  houses 
in  general  and  of  the  priory  of  Christ  Church  in 
particular. 

It  will  be  convenient  for  our  present  purpose  to 
take  in  order  the  great  officers  or  heads  of  departments 
around  whom  monastic  activity  revolved.  At  Christ 
Church,  including  the  prior,  these  heads  of  departments 
or  obedientiaries,  as  they  were  called,  were  nine  in 
number.  We  will  speak  of  them  in  the  order  of  their 
rank.  First,  the  Prior.  In  a cathedral  monastery  the 
bishop  was  always  the  titular  abbot,  though  in  all 
matters  of  internal  economy  the  prior  had  practically 
a free  hand.  It  is  true  that  the  prior  of  Christ  Church 
owed  his  election  to  the  archbishop,  but  the  brethren 
Tad  a very  considerable  voice  in  the  matter.  The 
proceedings  were  as  follows  : The  archbishop  first 

summoned  the  brethren  to  a solemn  meeting  in  the 
Chapter-house,  received  from  them  a roll  containing 
all  their  names,  and  took  their  votes.  He  then  retired 
for  consultation  with  his  clerks,  and  subsequently 
announced  the  result  to  the  assembled  brethren.  “ In 
the  name  of  the  Lord  and  of  His  most  glorious  Mother, 
of  the  Holy  Trinity  and  of  all  the  saints,  we  nominate, 
appoint,  and  give  you  as  prior  the  religious  man, 
brother  N,  one  of  the  monks  of  this  church  ; and  we 
enjoin  you,  in  virtue  of  your  holy  rule,  to  give  him 

223 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

obedience  in  things  both  spiritual  and  temporal. ” 
The  archbishop  then  placed  a ring  on  the  prior’s 
right  hand,  and  the  whole  company  adjourned  to 
the  choir  and  sang  the  Te  Deum , while  between 
their  double  ranks  he  walked  up  to  the  High  Altar 
and,  after  prayer  by  the  archbishop,  was  installed  in 
the  seat  nearest  to  the  altar  on  the  north  side  of 
the  choir  immediately  opposite  to  the  archiepiscopal 
throne. 

The  authority  and  jurisdiction  of  the  prior  were  at 
all  times  considerable  ; during  a vacancy  of  the  arch- 
bishopric ( sede  vacante)  they  included  courts  of  visita- 
tion and  of  probate  throughout  the  province,  and  even 
the  administration  of  vacant  sees.  Thus  we  read  that 
after  the  death  of  Archbishop  Peckham  in  1292  the 
Prior  of  Christ  Church  administered  four  distant 
dioceses — Llandaff,  Bath  and  Wells,  St.  David’s,  and 
St.  Asaph.  If  we  add  to  such  responsibilities  the 
government  of  a great  monastery  and  cathedral,  the 
management  of  great  estates,  and  the  entertainment  of 
innumerable  guests  and  pilgrims,  from  royalty  down- 
wards, it  is  clear  that  the  office  was  an  onerous  one, 
and  we  are  not  surprised  to  learn  that  several  of  the 
earlier  priors  were  glad  to  lay  down  the  burden  and 
return  to  the  obscurity  of  the  cloister. 

Nor  was  it  an  uncommon  thing  in  the  pre-Becket 
days  for  a prior  of  Christ  Church  to  accept  preferment 
to  an  abbacy.  Out  of  seventeen  priors  who  ruled  the 
house  between  the  days  of  Lanfranc  and  the  expulsion 
of  the  monks  by  King  John  no  less  than  five  priors  of 
Christ  Church  became  abbots  of  other  Benedictine 
monasteries  ; but  when  Canterbury  had  attained 
European  fame  as  the  scene  of  the  martyrdom  of 
St.  Thomas,  a prior  of  Christ  Church  seldom  cared 
to  exchange  his  position  for  any  other  the  Church 
could  offer.  Indeed,  he  now  felt  it  unbecoming  to 
his  dignity  to  attend  the  general  chapters  of  the  Order, 
where,  since  all  abbots  took  precedence  of  all  priors,  he 
224 


LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERY 

would  have  to  yield  the  fas  to  the  head  of  some  petty 
house  containing  perhaps  less  than  a score  of  inmates ; 
or,  worse  still,  might  have  to  witness  the  exalted  place 
allotted  to  his  rival  the  abbot  of  St.  Augustine’s. 
Thus,  in  order  to  escape  the  humiliation  which  awaited 
them  at  these  general  chapters,  the  priors  of  Christ 
Church  would  plead  ill-health  or  the  infirmities  of 
age.  In  1338  Prior  Eastry  excused  himself  on  the 
extraordinary  ground  that  he  had  been  ordered  by  the 
King  to  repair  to  one  of  the  convent’s  maritime  manors 
to  resist  with  his  retainers  an  invasion  from  the 
Continent/  At  length  the  Pope  was  pleased  to  grant 
a licence  exempting  the  priors  of  Christ  Church 
from  attendance.  And  other  marks  of  distinction 
came  from  Rome  from  time  to  time,  thus  : Alex- 

Iander  III  (1179-86)  by  an  undated  bull  permits 
the  prior  to  wear  the  tunic  and  dalmatic  at  mass 
on  certain  feasts;  Innocent  III  (April  22,  1206) 
grants  the  use  of  the  “ gloves,  dalmatic,  and  mantle  ” 
in  mens  a ; Honorius  III  (January  17,  1220)  grants 
to  the  prior  and  his  successors  the  use  of  the  mitre 
and  ring  in  processions  and  on  the  chief  feasts  of 
the  Church — this  was  on  the  occasion  of  the  famous 
Translation  of  St.  Thomas;  Urban  VI  (1378)  adds 
to  mitre,  tunic,  dalmatic,  gloves,  and  ring  the  privilege 
of  using  the  crosier  and  sandals,  and  of  giving  the 
blessing  after  mass,  in  the  other  divine  offices,  and  at 
table.1  The  prior  had  his  separate  “ lodging  ” or 
establishment,  at  first  on  the  west  side  of  the  passage 
now  known  as  the  Dark  Entry  ; and  afterwards,  with 
greater  dignity,  space,  and  comfort,  in  the  Nova  Camera 
Prioris , on  the  east  side.  Two  large  guest-houses,  the 
“ New  Lodging”  and  “ Master  Omer’s,”  were  in  a 
sense  extensions  of  his  Camera  for  the  entertainment 
of  distinguished  visitors.  He  had  his  own  chamberlain, 
marshal  and  other  esquires  {alii  armigen *),  clerk,  notary, 
farrier,  cook  and  his  man,  messenger,  groom  park- 
1 All  the  bulls  are  enrolled  in  Register  A,  f.  xxvi. 

P 


225 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

keeper,  and  underlings.1  A list  of  the  prior’s  servants 
in  1377  gives  their  number  at  twenty-two,  at  a total 
wage  of  £9  with  food  and  lodging.  At  a later  date  this 
amount  was  doubled.  He  was  attended  by  two  chap- 
lains, and  in  addition  to  his  private  chapel  over  the 
southern  alley  of  the  infirmary  cloister,  he  had  also  an 
oratory,  from  which  through  four  slits  or  squints  in 
the  north  wall  of  the  south-eastern  transept  he  could 
command  views  of  St.  Martin’s,  St.  Stephen’s,  and 
the  High  Altar. 

The  obedientiaries,  who  together  with  the  prior  and 
sub-prior  constituted  the  Chapter,  included  the  pre- 
centor, the  sacrist,  the  cellarer,  the  chamberlain,  two 
treasurers,  and  the  penitentiary.  A brief  summary  of 
the  duties  of  each  of  these  officers  will  be  sufficient  to 
give  some  insight  into  the  magnitude  and  complexity 
of  conventual  affairs. 

The  Precentor  was,  as  his  name  implies,  the  master 
of  the  music  (though  some  of  these  duties  were 
delegated  to  the  succentor).  He  was  responsible  for 
the  supply,  condition,  and  use  of  the  books,  and  of  the 
parchments,  skins,  and  other  materials  used  in  copying 
and  illuminating  ; he  was,  in  fact,  librarian,  and  will 
come  before  us  again  in  the  chapter  on  the  library. 
As  instructor  of  the  novices  he  held  a daily  class  in 
the  cloister,  and  a Latin  class  in  a room  approached 
by  the  small  doorway  at  the  western  end  of  the 
southern  cloister-walk. 

The  succentor,  as  choirmaster,  taught  the  young 
“ religious  ” to  sing  their  part  in  the  offices,  and  to  re- 
peat by  rote  various  psalms  and  prayers  for  chanting  in 
darkness  or  in  processions ; the  rest  was  done  by  the 
novice-master  ; and  since  many  postulants  were  at 
first  very  unlettered,  not  to  say  ignorant,  and  were 
required  to  attain  a reasonable  standard  of  proficiency 
before  admission  to  the  order,  his  task  was  sufficiently 
laborious.  His  tuition  comprised  much  more  than 
1 Register  J,  f.  508,  Ump.  Prior  Henry  of  Eastry. 


226 


LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERY 

“ book-learning,”  though  that  was  essential,  such  as 
the  usages  and  discipline  of  monastic  life,  control  of 
the  eyes  and  of  the  tongue,  gravity  and  seemliness  of 
demeanour  in  every  daily  action,  how  to  wear  the 
habit  and  to  bow  to  or  salute  superiors  according  to 
their  dignity  ; in  short,  the  entire  behaviour  of  the 
trained  and  devout  monk.  Even  recreation  was  a 
part  of  the  novice-master’s  care ; for,  beyond  insist- 
ence on  the  monastic  vows  of  poverty,  chastity,  and 
obedience,  it  was  no  part  of  the  Benedictine  Rule  to 
crush  harmless  natural  impulse.  The  holes,  squares, 
and  lines  in  the  stone  bench  of  the  south  cloister-walk  at 
Canterbury,  Westminster,  Gloucester,  and  elsewhere 
bear  witness  to  some  mediaeval  game  which  must  have 
been  played  with  considerable  assiduity  by  the  novices 
who  sat  there.  Both  indoor  and  outdoor  recreations, 
within  bounds  and  under  supervision,  were  encouraged. 
Nor,  it  may  be  added,  were  these  confined  to  novices, 
as  we  shall  see  towards  the  end  of  this  chapter  when 
we  sketch  the  daily  routine  of  convent  life.  Some 
relief  from  the  monotony  and  restriction  was  essential 
to  sanity.  Archbishop  Peckham,  on  his  visitations  in 
the  thirteenth  century,  found  tame  pets  in  religious 
houses — dogs,  monkeys,  cranes,  falcons,  and,  doubtless, 
jackdaws,  as  in  the  “ Ingoldsby  Legend.”  In  the 
fifteenth  century  the  prior  of  Christ  Church  kept  a 
pet  fawn  at  the  Barton  Manor.  The  prior  of  Cokes- 
ford,  in  Norfolk,  played  chess  with  the  brethren,  and 
he  was  probably  not  singular.  The  name  at  Canter- 
bury for  the  common  or  recreation  room  was  deportum , 
which  Willis  connects  with  the  Latin  deportare  and 
the  French  deporter , and  translates  as  “ hall  of  disport.” 
It  was  probably  over  the,  buttery  to  the  west  of  the 
Frater.  Here  the  austerity  of  the  Rule  was  relaxed 
and  the  free  flow  of  talk  was  permitted,  coupled,  how- 
ever, with  compulsory  attendance  at  “ all  processions, 
the  third  great  solemn  mass,  and  vespers.” 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  heart  and  centre 

227 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

of  all  monastic  life  was  the  Church,  according  to  St. 
Benedict’s  maxim  that  “ nothing  is  to  be  preferred  to 
the  opus  Dei”  the  divine  service,  the  perpetual  offering 
of  prayers,  intercessions,  and  worship  in  expiation  of 
sin  without  and  within  the  convent  walls,  and  in 
aspiration  to  the  secret  joys  of  an  inward  and  spiritual 
life.  In  the  memorable  phrase  of  the  Rites  of  Durham, 
“ The  House  was  always  watchinge  to  God,”  The 
cloister  was  the  workshop,  the  study,  the  school,  the 
focus  of  the  practical  daily  duties  and  tasks,  and 
commanded  access  to  every  part  of  the  convent  ; but 
the  church  and  its  offices  were  the  very  ground  of 
its  existence.  We  will  therefore  take  as  the  obedientiary 
next  in  importance  the  sacrist,  who  with  his 
four  assistants  had  charge  of  the  church  fabric,  its 
repair,  extension,  or  improvement,  its  lighting  and 
cleansing,  its  altars  and  shrines,  its  curtains  and 
hangings,  its  sacramental  vessels,  its  ornaments  and 
vestments.  He  kept  the  floor  carpeted  with  rushes 
or  sweet  fresh  hay,  and  the  choir  supplied  with  rush- 
mats  for  the  feet  of  the  monks.  He  looked  to  the 
grass,  the  walks,  and  the  graves  in  the  burial-ground  of 
the  brethren,  to  the  condition  and  ringing  of  the  bells, 
and  to  the  punctual  opening  and  closing  of  the  church 
doors.  He  or  one  of  his  staff  was  afoot  before  the 
brethren  to  light  up  the  dormitory  as  they  rose  at 
midnight  for  matins.  He  provided  and  lit  the  great 
cressets  or  bowls  of  tallow  with  wicks  which  dimly 
illumined  the  cloister  after  dark  and  burned  all  night 
in  the  nave,  the  choir,  and  the  treasury.  In  or  near 
the  last  chamber  a sub-sacrist  would  usually  sleep 
and  another  near  the  choir,  as  guardians  of  the 
treasures  and  relics.  There  was  (and  is)  also  a 
watching-chamber  for  unceasing  outlook  upon  the 
shrine  of  St.  Thomas.  Lead,  glass,  and  workmen’s 
materials  from  the  neighbouring  fairs,  wax,  tallow, 
hay,  straw,  and  rushes  from  the  farms,  charcoal,  wine, 
and  incense  are  mentioned  in  the  sacrist’s  accounts. 
228 


LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERY 

Cressets  and  candles  he  seems  to  have  furnished  not 
only  to  the  church  but  to  the  entire  monastery  ; and 
when  one  considers  the  difficulty  of  lighting  these 
great  buildings  without  modern  appliances,  and  the 
high  price  of  wax  when  there  were  no  substitutes  of 
sperm  or  paraffin,  the  outlay  must  have  been  large. 
In  one  of  the  old  registers1  there  is  a formidable 
specification  of  the  candles  required  for  the  church. 
The  Easter  candle  ( cereus  paschalis)  was  to  contain 
300  lb.  of  wax.  On  the  seven-branched  candelabrum 
six  candles  were  to  weigh  7 lb.,  the  middle  one  8 lb. ; 
portable  candles  on  the  feast  of  the  Purification,  3 lb.  ; 
candles  carried  in  processions  and  at  masses,  2 lb.  The 
sizes  and  weights  of  smaller  lights  are  legion  : for  the 
various  altars,  for  the  nave,  for  the  crypt,  obit  candles 
for  the  anniversaries  of  the  dead,  for  reading  the 
lessons  in  the  choir,  for  the  prior’s  lodgings,  for  going 
round  the  dormitory  between  the  fifteen  psalms  and 
matins,  for  the  deportum , for  the  infirmary,  for  going 
round  the  choir  during  matins,  for  lanterns,  for  horse- 
men, for  waking  the  servants  to  ring  the  bells.  In 
an  order  of  Chapter  dated  1308  there  is  a direction  for 
the  lighting  at  the  Sanctus  during  Mass  either  at 
the  high  or  at  the  matutinal  altar  of  two  torches, 
each  eight  feet  long  and  containing  twelve  pounds  of 
wax.  If  any  brother  broke  a torch  he  had  to  make  it 
^good  out  of  his  bread  and  pottage  in  the  Frater. 

It  is  scarcely  surprising  after  this  to  learn  that  wax 
was  the  heaviest  single  item  in  the  sacrist’s  accounts. 
In  1496  he  spent  .£29  3s.  4d.  (say  £500)  in  the  purchase 
of  1256  lb.  of  wax. 

To  meet  this  great  expenditure  the  sacrist  was 
allotted  various  manorial  and  other  dues.  In  1463  he 
had  the  rents  of  twenty  shops  and  nine  gardens  in  the 
precincts.  Fairs  were  held  by  royal  licence  in  the 
churchyard  for  nine  days  four  times  a year,  viz.  at 
Christmas,  Easter,  the  Translation  of  St.  Thomas 
1 B,  f.  423. 


229 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

(July  7),  and  Michaelmas  ; and  the  rents  of  the  stalls 
or  standings  were  a part  of  the  income  of  his  office. 
His  total  receipts  for  a year  are  recorded  as  £133  os.  4d. 
He  had  a house  on  the  site  now  occupied  by  the 
residence  attached  to  the  fifth  canonry.  A mound 
in  the  garden  was  probably  formed  by  the  debris  of 
the  Norman  campanile,  which  was  overthrown  by 
earthquake  in  the  reign  of  Richard  II,  and  in 
which  before  its  fall  the  sacrist  held  his  court  and 
received  his  dues. 

If  the  services  of  the  precentor  and  the  sacrist  were 
indispensable  respectively  to  the  intellectual  and  to 
the  spiritual  life  of  the  community,  those  of  the 
Cellarer  were  equally  necessary  to  its  bodily  life.  He 
was  chief  of  the  commissariat  and  purveyor  of  all 
food-supplies,  not  only  for  the  monks  but  for  guests, 
pilgrims,  and  the  many  servants  and  dependents  of  the 
house.  The  miller  looked  to  him  for  corn,  the  baker 
for  flour,  the  brewer  for  malt,  the  kitchener  for  fish, 
flesh,  fowl,  and  vegetables.  His  affairs  took  him  away 
so  often  to  the  granges  and  farms,  the  markets  and 
fairs,  that  he  had  special  permission  of  absence  from 
the  ordinary  religious  offices  on  condition  that  he 
should  say  them  privately  ; and  he  was  occasionally 
warned  of  the  danger  to  his  monastic  profession  of  all 
these  worldly  cares.  He  engaged  and  dismissed  ser- 
vants and  presided  at  their  table  after  the  meals  of 
the  brethren.  He  provided  for  the  “ pittances  ” or 
little  extra  dishes  which  formed  an  addition  on  special 
occasions  to  the  plain  monastic  fare.  Under  this  head 
we  find  some  curious  entries  in  the  accounts  of  the 
year  1467  : wine,  dates,  cloves,  mace,  honey,  fish, 
saffron,  “ reyson  coronts  ” (raisin  currants  ?),  and  our 
old  friend,  so  seldom  absent  from  a balance-sheet,  but 
here  disguised  in  the  spelling,  “ sawndrez.”  Besides  food 
of  all  sorts,  the  cellarer  ordered  also  the  fuel  and  the 
materials  for  the  repair  of  the  buildings.  To  the  sub- 
cellarer (for  he  had  and  needed  assistants)  he  delegated 
230 


Ruins  of  the  Frater-House 


LIFE  OF  T HE  MONASTERT 

the  bread-store  and  the  beer-cellar.  There  were 
several  kinds  of  bread,  from  the  coarse  and  plain  to 
the  cake  of  fine  flour,  to  be  served  as  occasion  demanded. 
“ Monks’  bread,”  “ smalpeis,”  “ fetys,”  “ plein-pain,” 
and  kitchen  bread  were  made  daily.  The  temperature 
and  fermentation  of  the  beer  required  careful  watch- 
ing. It  was  to  be  measured  for  use  by  the  half-gallon 
measure,  known  as  the  “ Justa  Lanfranci,”  which,  like 
all  the  vessels,  utensils,  and  linen  throughout  the 
priory,  was  kept  scrupulously  clean. 

The  brethren  had  one  plain  “ square  ” meal  a day, 
and,  excepting  from  All  Saints’  till  Christmas,  and 
Epiphany  till  Easter,  and  on  fast  days,  a few  ounces  of 
bread  and  a little  beer  for  breakfast,  and  a simple 
supper  of  one  dish  and  occasional  pittance.  No  meal 
was  to  consist  of  more  than  two  courses,  though  it 
might  occasionally  be  supplemented  by  the  “ pittance,” 
which  might  be  compared  with  our  “ savoury  ” or 
dessert.  Bread,  pottage,  fish  and  vegetables  were 
the  staple.  It  was  usual  in  the  Frater  to  serve  the 
portions  of  two  brethren  in  one  dish,  such  a dish  for 
two  being  the  equivalent  (we  are  told)  of  four  soles, 
or  two  plaice,  or  eight  herrings,  or  two  mackerel,  or 
ten  eggs.  Whatever  was  left  over,  uncovered  by 
the  monk’s  napkin,  was  collected  by  the  almoner 
for  the  poor.  The  wine  must  have  been  of  the 
thinnest,  and  the  beer  of  the  smallest,  for  the  latter 
especially  was  used  as  we  use  tea,  coffee,  and  soda-water. 
The  quantity  allowed  (as  shown  in  the  monastic 
registers)  to  a brother  who  had  officiated  at  mass  or 
performed  some  laborious  task  is  amazing  to  modern 
ideas,  and  to  understand  it  at  all  we  must  recall  the 
use  of  light  beer  by  the  German  student  and  of  vin 
ordinaire  by  the  French  peasant.  We  read  of  allow- 
ances of  two  gallons  at  a time,  sometimes  of  wine, 
sometimes  of  beer ; to  the  sub-prior,  after  celebrating, 
of  even  “ four  gallons  of  wine  without  spices.”  It 
is  something  of  a mystery,  explain  it  as  we  may,  and 

233 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

probably,  though  granted  to  the  person  chiefly  con- 
cerned, was  meant  to  cover  the  requirements  of  several 
assistants  ; perhaps  sometimes  the  requirements  of 
more  than  one  day.  Recorded  breaches  of  discipline, 
though  they  include  far  graver  faults,  and  even  crimes, 
scarcely  include  a single  case  of  drunkenness. 

The  cellarer’s  lodging  was  situated  outside  the  west 
wall  of  the  great  cloister.  Nothing  is  now  left  of  it 
except  the  door  by  which  it  was  approached  from  the 
cloister  and  the  circular  opening  in  the  wall  for  the 
turntable  by  means  of  which  a thirsty  monk  could 
be  supplied  with  a glass  of  beer  without  revealing  his 
identity  to  the  tapster  within.  In  the  garden  of  the 
house  now  occupied  by  the  Bishop  of  Dover  are  the 
remains  of  the  Domus  Hospitum  or  cellarer’s  hall  for 
the  entertainment  of  guests.  Portions  of  the  vaults 
beneath  the  great  hall  remain  ; these  were  the  cellars 
proper  or  storehouses,  above  which  was  the  hall  itself. 
Chillenden’s  chambers  were  an  extension  or  “ depend- 
ance  ” of  the  Domus  Hospitum , rendered  necessary 
by  the  increasing  resort  of  visitors  to  the  shrine  of 
St.  Thomas,  and  were  connected  by  a covered  way 
or  “ pentise  ” (still  to  be  seen  in  the  gardens  of  the 
seneschal’s  house  and  of  Chillenden’s  chambers)  with 
the  Court  gatehouse,  on  the  north  side  of  which  was 
the  Aula  Nova  or  north  hall,  of  which  little  remains 
but  the  beautiful  Norman  stairway  and  the  arches  of 
the  substructure.  It  was  of  great  size,  being  figured 
in  the  twelfth-century  plan  as  extending  to  the  north 
wall  of  the  precincts,  fourteen  feet  from  the  city  wall ; 
and  is  believed  to  have  been  allotted,  as  both  dormitory 
and  refectory,  to  the  poorer  pilgrims,  who  brought 
their  own  bedding  and  cooking  utensils.  It  is  more 
certainly  known  that  the  seneschal  of  the  liberties  held 
his  court  there,  and  that  part  of  the  substructure  was 
used  as  a prison. 

The  presiding  official  (always  under  the  cellarer)  of 
the  Domus  Hospitum  and  its  adjuncts  was  the  guest- 
234 


‘The  Cellarer's  Door  in  the  Cloister  and  the 
Aperture  in  which  the  Turn-table  was  placed 


LIFE  OF  T HE  MONASTERY 

master  or  steward  of  the  guest-hall,  whose  duty  it  was 
not  only  to  provide  for  the  entertainment  of  visitors, 
but  to  meet  them  at  the  gatehouse  and  ascertain  their 
name  and  quality,  directing  the  better  sort  along  the 
pentise  to  their  comfortable  quarters,  and  the  poorer 
pilgrims  to  the  Aula  Nova. 

Something  should  here  be  said  of  the  hospitality  for 
which  the  cellarer  had  to  make  provision.  Inns  in 
the  Middle  Ages  were  rough  and,  except  in  towns, 
infrequent  ; the  hardships  of  travel  would,  but  for 
the  network  of  religious  houses,  have  been  almost 
intolerable.  Every  large  monastery  had  a guest-house 
and  an  open  door  for  the  traveller,  who  was  welcomed 
in  the  name  of  Christ — ■“  I was  a stranger  and  ye  took 
Me  in.”  Two  days  and  nights  were  the  usual  length 
of  his  permitted  stay  ; if  he  wished  to  remain  longer 
he  had  to  ask  leave,  and  was  perhaps  expected  to  make 
some  offering  in  return  for  his  free  quarters,  though 
wealthy  houses  were  often  very  generous  and  long- 
suffering. 

But  Christ  Church  priory  was  no  ordinary  monastery. 
The  shrine  of  St.  Thomas  was  a magnet  for  innumerable 
pilgrims  ; and  as  the  seat  both  of  the  primate  and  of  the 
chapter  which  elected  him  the  monastery  was  of  the 
utmost  political  and  ecclesiastical  importance,  attract- 
ing all  the  notabilities  of  the  realm.  The  arrange- 
-unents  therefore  for  hospitality  were  necessarily  on  an 
exceptional  scale,  though  privacy  and  comfort  in  our 
sense  of  the  words  were  then  scarcely  known. 

Distinguished  guests  would  probably  be  received 
in  the  prior’s  Camera , which  doubtless  from  an  early 
date  afforded  separate  accommodation  for  meals  and 
sleeping  purposes.  The  second  and  larger  Camera  of 
the  prior  was  supplemented  by  a range  of  chambers, 
called  the  New  Lodging,  of  which  part  is  incorporated 
with  the  southern  side  of  the  deanery.  But  of  all  the 
buildings  provided  for  the  accommodation  of  visitors 
the  largest  and  most  typical  is  that  which  now  forms 

237 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

the  prebendal  house,  due  east  from  Becket’s  Crown. 
This  house,  which  after  a former  occupant,  one 
Master  Omer,  who  in  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth 
century  was  official  of  the  court  of  the  prior  and  chapter, 
is  still  called  by  his  name,  has  a circular  staircase 
leading  up  to  various  rooms  which  were  doubtless 
occupied  by  guests.  The  western  side  had  ground- 
floor  rooms  then,  as  now,  used  for  offices,  above  which 
was  the  gallery,  which  could  be  used  for  music.  The 
whole  of  the  eastern  part  of  the  building  was,  before 
the  suppression  of  the  monastery,  one  great  hall,  which 
could  be  used  alike  for  meals  and  as  a dormitory  for 
servants  and  retainers.  It  was  in  this  house  that 
John  Buckingham,  sometime  bishop  of  Lincoln  and 
afterwards  a monk  of  Christ  Church,  died  in  1396. 

That  all  these  houses  in  addition  to  the  convent 
were  victualled  from  the  cellarer’s  stores  is  some 
indication  of  the  extent  of  his  responsibilities.  We 
will  conclude  our  sketch  of  them  by  appending  a 
curious  Table  which  throws  light  not  only  upon  the 
labours  of  the  cellarer  but  upon  prices,  wages,  convent 
customs,  and  the  number  of  servants  employed ; 

Gifts  or  allowances  of  food,  & c.,  made  to  conventual  officers  and 
others  at  Easter  and  Christmas : 

The  archbishop — 381  fowls,  at  3d.  each  ; fifteen  porkers,  called 
“ freshyngs,”  at  2S.  6d.  each  ; 2700  eggs,  at  6d.  the  100  ; twenty  lambs, 
at  6d.  each  ; twenty  cheeses,  at  3d.  each.  Deducting  from  the  total  a 
rent  of  £8  due  from  the  archbishop  as  rent  of  land  at  Reculver,  there 
remains  a balance  of  3d.  due. 

The  infirmary — 100  fowls,  four  freshyngs,  1000  eggs,  eight  lambs, 
eight  cheeses,  and  eight  “ burrats,”  costing  id.  each. 

The  hospitals  of  Northgate  and  Harbledown — 200  fowls,  five  freshyngs, 
2000  eggs,  twenty  lambs,  twenty  cheeses,  and  eight  burrats. 

The  porter  of  the  Monks’ Court  (Curia  Monachorum) — ten  fowls,  one 
freshyng,  200  eggs,  two  lambs,  two  cheeses,  and  two  burrats. 

The  seneschal  of  the  Monks’  Court,  the  same. 

The  Custos  Curia  of  the  archbishop,  the  same. 

The  four  serving-men  of  the  church — sixteen  fowls,  one  freshyng, 
200  eggs,  two  lambs,  two  cheeses,  and  two  burrats. 

The  porter  and  washerwoman  of  the  church — each  eight  fowls,  half 
a freshyng,  200  eggs,  two  lambs,  two  cheeses,  and  two  burrats. 

238 


Ruins  of  Cellarer's  Hall 


LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERY 

The  servants  of  the  infirmary,  two  valets  {vallecti)  of  the  bath  and  the 
custos  of  the  infirmary  gate — twenty  fowls,  one  freshyng,  250  eggs,  two 
lambs,  two  cheeses,  and  two  burrats. 

The  servants  of  the  clothing  shop  (sartrina) — twenty  fowls,  one 
freshyng,  2000  eggs,  two  lambs,  two  cheeses,  and  two  burrats. 

We  are  disposed  at  first  to  ask,  almost  with  a gasp,  how 
the  archbishop  disposed  of  381  fowls,  fifteen  porkers, 
twenty  lambs,  and  2700  eggs,  and  how  the  latter  were 
kept  fresh.  No  recent  occupant  of  the  see,  even  with 
the  aid  of  his  entire  staff,  could  have  consumed  such 
quantities  without  inconvenience.  The  question  would 
apply  equally  to  the  porter  of  the  monks’  court  with 
his  ten  fowls,  one  freshyng,  200  eggs,  and  two  lambs. 
The  archbishop,  it  is  true,  had  obviously  a large 
retinue  ; but  both  primate  and  porter  must  have 
resorted  to  salt  and  other  preservatives,  and  have  made 
store  for  leaner  days. 

The  Camerarius  or  chamberlain  had  charge  of  the 
clothing,  sleeping  accommodation,  laundrywork,  and 
personal  washing  and  shaving  of  the  monks  ; he  also 
provided  the  clothing  of  the  servants.  In  1318  a 
cloth  merchant  is  asked  to  send  the  following  goods  : 
two  and  a half  pieces  of  well-dyed  cloth  for  clerks,  at 
73s.  4d.  per  piece  ; two  pieces  of  coloured  cloth  and 
two  pieces  with  broad  stripes  of  colour  to  match  for 
esquires,  at  70s.  ; four  pieces  with  broad  stripes  of  a 
good  parti-colour  for  keepers  and  knaves,  at  53s.  ^d.; 
^and  four  pieces  of  parti-colour  for  grooms,  at  40s.1 
There  is  also  an  order  for  129  ells  of  black  cloth,  to 
cost  £16  13s.,  and  380  ells  of  linen  cloth,  to  cost 
£j  1 8s.  4d.  The  chamberlain  reports  that  a habit 
( robri ) can  be  made  for  a monk  out  of  two  and  a half 
lengths  ( fanni ) of  cloth.  The  making  and  repairing  of 
garment’s  for  so  great  a number  must  have  been  a 
considerable  undertaking,  and  accordingly  he  had  a 
tailors’  and  outfitters’  workshop,  which  may  possibly 
have  been  the  building  identified  by  Willis  as  the 

1 Lit.  Cant.  vol.  i,  p.  40. 

Q 


241 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

second  dormitory,  for  there  is  no  documentary  evidence 
of  the  existence  of  more  than  one  dormitory.  The 
staff  of  this  workshop  ( sartrina ) included  the  master- 
tailor,  second  tailor,  furrier  or  pelterer,  master- 
sempster  and  his  man,  the  “ saver,”  and  three  washer- 
women. Like  the  cellarer,  the  chamberlain  had  to  be 
much  at  fairs  and  markets  for  the  purchase  of  cloth, 
linen,  kersey,  leather  for  sandals  and  boots,  the  skins 
and  furs  needed  for  winter  underclothing  in  the  un- 
warmed church  and  open  cloister,  sewing  materials, 
sleeping-mats,  rugs,  and  toilet  necessaries,  and  so  was 
in  some  degree  exempted  from  the  regular  choir 
offices.  There  was  a chamber  set  apart  for  the  shaving 
of  the  monks,  which  was  below  the  passage  from  the 
dormitory  to  the  church  and  close  to  the  sub- 
vaults of  the  lavatory  tower.  Its  repair  is  mentioned 
among  the  works  of  Chillenden — “ Domum  rasture 
d,e  novo  fieri  fecit.’9  Besides  the  daily  use  of  this 
chamber,  there  was  once  in  three  weeks  a shaving  of 
tonsures,  one  of  the  brethren  acting  as  barber,  while 
others  repeated  psalms  as  they  waited  their  turns. 
From  the  mediaeval  kinship  between  the  arts  of  the 
barber  and  of  the  surgeon,  we  may  infer  that  here 
took  place  the  operation  of  bleeding  which  was  con- 
stantly practised  both  as  preventive  and  as  cure.  The 
brethren  were  bled  by  twos  or  threes  at  a time,  care- 
fully bandaged,  and  transferred  to  the  infirmary  for  a 
few  days.  On  Saturday  nights  there  was  a general 
washing  of  feet  in  the  cloister,  doubtless  to  the  same 
accompaniment  of  psalmody  as  the  tonsure-shaving. 
There  were  compulsory  baths  at  Christmas  and 
optional  ones  at  other  times.  For  these  and  similar 
occasions  the  chamberlain  provided  hot  water,  soap, 
clean  towels,  and  other  accessories.  Though  no  site  or 
building  can  be  identified  as  the  laundry,  it  is  obvious 
that  there  was  a great  deal  of  laundrywork,  for  washer- 
women are  freely  mentioned  in  the  lists  of  work- 
people, and  the  monks’  underclothing  (shirts,  drawers, 
242 


LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERT 

and  socks)  was  washed  every  fortnight  in  summer  and 
once  in  three  weeks  in  winter,  besides  the  napery  and 
other  fabrics  in  common  use.  It  was  for  the  chamber- 
lain  to  organise  and  arrange  all  this,  and  to  ensure 
by  a system  of  tallies  the  return  of  articles  from  the 
wash. 

The  dormitory  was  an  oblong  hall  due  north  of  the 
chapter -house  and  immediately  adjoining  it.  The 
cubicles  were  against  the  walls  on  either  side,  and  down 
the  middle  ran  a dividing  wall  with  low  pillars  and 
arches.  It  was  lighted  at  night  by  four  great  stone 
cressets  in  the  corners,  and  in  the  daytime  by  windows, 
of  which  five,  of  the  date  of  Lanfranc,  may  still  be 
seen  above  the  cloister  roof,  four  being  incorporated 
into  the  chapter  library.  That  the  sleeping  accom- 
modation of  the  seventy  or  eighty  brethren  in  this 
immense  bedroom  devolved  upon  the  chamberlain  is 
natural  enough,  and  there  is  evidence  that  the  furnish- 
ing of  other  apartments,  such  as  the  Defortum 
(recreation-room)  and  the  calefactory  (for  warmth  after 
the  cold  church,  or  after  being  “ blooded  ”)  were  also 
part  of  his  care.  There  is  an  entry  in  the  year  1499 
of  the  purchase  of  a long  mat,  containing  eight  yards, 
extending  from  the  dormitory  door  to  the  parlour 
door.1  The  chamberlain’s  yearly  income,  derived 
partly  from  rents  and  partly  from  a grant  from  the 
^monastic  treasury,  amounted  to  about  .£112. 

In  Abbot  Gasquet’s  “ English  Monastic  Life  ” there 
is  no  mention  of  the  penitentiary  among  monastic 
officers.  Doubtless  organisation  varied  in  different 
communities ; but  at  Christ  Church  he  was  one  of 
the  nine  obedientiaries,  and  the  prior’s  right-hand 
man  in  maintaining  and  administering  discipline. 
Certain  of  the  brethren  were  appointed  scrutators  or 
circatores  claustri , and  bound  to  report  all  breaches  of 
the  Rule,  which  were  dealt  with  daily  in  the  chapter  - 

1 “ In  longitudine  ab  hostio  dormiterii  usque  ad  hostium  locutorieF 
Sacrist’s  Accounts. 


243 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

house  after  mass.  The  corporal  part  of  the  penance 
usually  consisted  of  scourging  (done  on  the  spot),  or  of 
a scantier  and  severer  diet.  Sometimes  it  extended 
to  a kind  of  temporary  boycott,  or  even  to  expul- 
sion. In  1313  Archbishop  Reynolds  wrote  that  all 
monk’s  in  priest’s  orders  who  did  not  celebrate  mass 
four  times  a week  should  in  the  week  following 
eat  and  drink  only  in  the  Frater.  If  this  were  a 
fasting  season,  it  would  mean  food  of  any  kind  only 
once  a day.  • 

In  1323  there  seems  to  have  been  something  like  a 
mutiny  or  rebellion,  of  which  Brother  Robert  de 
Aledon  was  a ringleader.  Six  of  the  monks  were 
sequestrated  and  forbidden  to  shave  their  beards  or 
crowns  till  the  following  Easter.  Among  the  accusa- 
tions were  neglect  of  the  daily  offices,  absence  from  the 
convent  for  improper  purposes,  perjury  at  the  arch- 
bishop’s visitation,  forgery  in  the  name  of  the  chapter, 
the  writing  of  scandalous  letters,  and  theft  of  the 
community’s  goods.  A silver  vase  was  missing  from 
the  prior’s  lodgings,  and  Robert  de  Aledon  was  found 
to  be  in  possession  of  a lump  of  silver  weighing  10  lb., 
of  which  he  could  give  no  satisfactory  account.  He 
had  also  taken  silver  vessels  from  the  Frater  and 
valuable  books  from  the  library.  The  brethren  were 
for  expulsion,  and  much  correspondence  took  place 
between  the  prior  and  the  archbishop  ; there  was 
even  an  appeal  on  behalf  of  the  culprit  to  the  King. 
The  upshot  is  not  fully  related,  but  in  1349  Aledon 
seems  to  have  still  been  at  Christ  Church  and  (from 
a letter  of  Archbishop  Islip’s)  to  have  been  treated  by 
the  prior  with  considerable  rigour.  After  a scandal 
such  as  the  foregoing  it  is  a light  matter  to  read  in 
an  old  fragment  of  manuscript  the  names  of  brethren 
who  were  never  at  compline,  who  broke  the  bounds  of 
seclusion  by  frequenting  the  lively  purlieus  of  the 
Green  Court,  ana  “ would  not  be  spoken  to  ” by  their 
superiors. 

244 


LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERY 

There  was  this  year  (1323)  trouble  also  with  the 
scrutators , who,  though  they  kept  the  Rule,  refused  to 
demean  themselves  by  reporting  those  who  broke  it. 
These  darker  episodes  were  rare  exceptions  ; the  short- 
comings of  the  monks  have  been  much  exaggerated 
by  their  enemies.  Henry  VIII,  in  the  Act  of  1536 
suppressing  the  376  smaller  monasteries,  testifies  to 
“ divers  great  and  solemn  monasteries  of  this  realm 
wherein  (thanks  be  to  God)  religion  is  right  well  kept 
and  observed.” 

There  were  two  Treasurers,  both  of  whom  appear  to 
have  been  obedientiaries,  and  the  importance  of  whose 
office  will  be  best  indicated  by  some  reference  to  the 
financial  affairs  under  their  charge. 

Before  the  Conquest  the  archbishops  and  the 
monks  held  their  estates  in  common,  and  indeed  lived 
under  the  same  roof  and  formed  a single  corporation. 
Lanfranc  dissolved  this  partnership,  and  his  successors 
have  ever  since  had  a separate  residence  or  “ palace  ” 
and  a separate  estate.  According  to  the  burdens, 
exactions,  or  troubles  which  fell  respectively  upon  the 
see  or  the  convent,  one  would  borrow  of  the  other,  to 
repay  in  better  times.  In  the  year  1273,  for  instance, 
the  monastery  owed  the  archbishop  no  less  than 

£22 66  13s.  4d.  (more  than  .£50,000  !),  besides  having 

to  repay  the  merchants  of  Florence  .£429  6s.  8d.,  and 
to  furnish  the  King  with  a loan  of  300  marks  (a  mark 
was  13s.  4d.).  The  total  receipts  of  the  monastery 

that  year  were  .£191 7 10s.,  and  out  of  this  the  monks 

had  to  live.  This  was  clearly  a problem  requiring 
at  least  two  treasurers  for  its  solution. 

There  were  great  fluctuations  of  income,  owing 
partly  to  variation  in  the  amount  of  offerings  at  the 
shrines,  but  far  more  to  the  accidents  which  beset 
farming.  In  1307  the  losses  by  cattle  plague  were 
207  oxen,  valued  at  15s.  each  ; 51 1 cows,  valued  at  10s. 
each  ; and  4080  sheep,  valued  at  7s.  6d.  each  ; while 
1212  acres  of  the  best  marsh  land  of  the  brotherhood 

245 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

were  inundated  by  the  sea.  In  1321  the  convent  lost 
more  than  1000  head  of  cattle  in  a single  year. 

Then  there  were  also  great  fluctuations  in  expendi- 
ture. The  appointment  of  a new  archbishop  involved 
heavy  payments  both  in  England  and  at  the  Court  of 
Rome  ; and  sometimes  these  appointments  would 
follow  each  other  with  disconcerting  rapidity,  as  when 
the  see  fell  vacant  three  times  in  a year  at  the  time  of 
the  Black  Death.  There  were  forced  contributions 
and  heavy  loans,  not  always  repaid,  to  the  Crown  for 
military  and  other  purposes.  The  visits  of  royalty 
with  its  retinue  were  very  costly  ; and  the  visitors 
sometimes  left  behind  them  retainers  to  be  kept 
indefinitely  at  the  charges  of  the  monks.  It  has  been 
already  mentioned  . that  at  the  Translation  of  St. 
Thomas  in  1220  the  outlay  over  pageantry  and  the 
entertainment  of  countless  pilgrims  embarrassed  four 
successive  archbishops,  and  the  monastery  shared  the 
burden.  Lawsuits,  appeals  to  Rome,  and  great  build- 
ing operations  would  all,  at  irregular  intervals,  affect 
the  balance-sheet. 

During  the  six  years  preceding  the  Translation 
in  1220  the  receipts  from  all  sources  averaged 
.£1460  14s.  ofd.  For  the  five  following  years,  owing 
in  great  part  to  the  increase  of  offerings,  the  average 
rose  to  £2340  12s.  A hundred  years  later,  in  1326, 
the  outgoings  are  entered  as  £204.6  10s.  8d.,  and  in 
1 33 6 as  .£2317  ns.  4Jd.  In  1299  the  receipts  rose 
to  ^4552  3s.  iod.,  while  the  outgoings  were  only 
£2180  19s.  7d. 

The  receipts  both  from  offerings  and  from  the 
estates  were  variable,  but,  roughly  speaking,  the 
offerings  were  about  one-fifth  of  the  whole.  As  an 
illustration  of  the  dire  shifts  to  which  the  monks  were 
sometimes  reduced  for  ready  money,  we  may  mention 
that  in  the  year  1316  they  pledged  to  the  archbishop, 
as  security  for  a loan  for  payment  of  the  royal  tenths, 
a gold  cross,  jewelled  and  containing  a fragment  of 
246 


LIFE  OF  FHE  MONASTERY 

the  true  Cross,  valued  at  £ 200 , and  two  ewers  (olid) 
of  gold,  worth  respectively  £58  and  £50.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century  the  priory  had 
8434  acres  under  crops.  There  was  a warden  of  the 
manors,  who  visited  the  farms  and  outlying  estates 
reported  on  their  condition,  and  ordered  necessary 
repairs  and  improvements,  but  the  main  responsibility 
for  the  collection  or  remission  of  rents  lay  with  the 
treasurers. 

One  of  the  smaller  complications  of  their  work  was 
the  dealing  with  foreign  and  obsolete  coins — pilgrims1' 
offerings,  payments  for  wool  or  corn  sent  abroad,  or 
rent  extracted  from  the  old  stocking  of  some  remote 
tenant.  There  is  extant  a letter  dated  August  13, 
1335,  from  a London  agent  to  the  Prior  “ concerning 
the  sixty  pounds’  weight  of  odd  coins  ” to  be  exchanged 
for  current  money.  Distinction  is  drawn  between 
“ pure  metal  ” worth  21s.  in  the^i,  “ standard  metal  ” 
worth  19s.  6d.,  and  still  lower  quality  worth  only  18s.1 

If  the  average  income  of  the  monastery  in  the 
fourteenth  century  be  very  roughly  estimated  at 
£ 2200 , the  treasurers  would  have  to  deal  with  an 
annual  sum  of  .£50,000  to  £6 0,000  of  our  money,  and 
an  expenditure  which  sometimes  left  a balance  in 
hand,  but  in  disastrous  years  required  a loan  from  the 
archbishop  or  the  Florentine  bankers  to  make  ends  meet. 

Two  conventual  officers  who  were  not  obedientiaries, 
but  are  far  too  important  to  be  omitted  from  our 
survey,  are  the  almoner  and  the  infirmarer. 

The  almonry,  of  which  nothing  remains,  was  out- 
side the  gate  of  the  Curia  or  Green  Court.  In  order 
to  understand  the  scale  on  which  charity  was  adminis- 
tered we  must  remember  that  in  the  Middle  Ages 
there  was  no  Poor  Law  ; the  religious  houses  were  the 
sole  barrier  between  the  destitute  and  absolute  starva- 
tion. We  must  further  remember  that  the  whole 
monastic  movement  was  a protest  against  violence  and 
1 Lit.  Cant.  No.  585. 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

cruelty,  the  private  wars  and  disregard  of  law  which 
both  caused  poverty  and  multiplied  its  sufferings. 
The  widow  and  the  orphan,  the  sick  and  the  lame,  the 
“ broken  man  ” and  the  needy  household,  were  daily 
helped  and  advised  as  Christ’s  poor.  Certain  anniver- 
saries and  the  great  festivals  were  marked  by  wholesale 
gifts.  For  instance,  at  Christ  Church  on  May  28, 
the  day  of  Lanfranc’s  death,  the  almoner  gave  700 
loaves  for  the  use  of  the  house  (his  largesse  was  not 
restricted  entirely  to  those  outside  the  gates)  and 
3400  loaves  for  distribution  amongst  the  poor.  The 
bellringers  were  not  forgotten,  for  thirty-two  loaves 
with  cheese  and  beer  went  to  the  custodian  of  the 
great  tower  ( magnum  campanile).  Two  bucks  were 
given  to  the  infirmary  at  Michaelmas,  and  two  does 
at  the  Translation  of  St.  Thomas.  On  Maundy 
Thursday  the  sub-almoner,  after  the  chapter  meeting, 
collected  a number  of  poor  folk  corresponding  to  the 
number  of  the  brethren,  led  them  through  the  cloister 
to  hear  mass  at  the  altar  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  and 
took  them  back  through  the  cloister  to  the  hall,  where 
each  received  “ a loaf  of  bread,  called  ‘ small  peys,’ 
some  salt,  and  three  herrings,  with  as  much  drink 
as  they  wished  ” (surely  an  evidence  of  its  harm- 
less quality).  They  then  returned  to  the  cloister  for 
the  feet-washing,  in  which  all  the  community  from 
the  prior  downward  took  their  part.  This  was  the 
great  maundy.  There  was  a daily  maundy  at  which 
the  brethren  washed  the  feet  of  three  or  four  poor 
men,  and  the  weekly  maundy,  when  on  Saturdays  they 
washed  one  another’s  feet. 

Not  the  least  useful  or  interesting  work  of  the 
almonry  was  its  free  school  for  poor  boys,  of  whom  the 
ablest  and  most  diligent  were,  if  of  a devout  character, 
encouraged  to  offer  themselves  as  novices,  and  so  to 
recruit  the  ranks  of  the  brethren.  Many  such  almonry 
scholars  became  learned  and  famous  men. 

Candidates  for  the  novitiate  took  oath  that  they 
248 


LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERY 

were  not  previously  pledged  to  any  other  religious 
body  ; were  not  under  a vow  to  visit  the  Holy  Land 
or  the  Roman  Curia ; were  not  married  or  under 
a contract  to  marry  ; had  not  been  guilty  of  homicide 
or  any  other  serious  crime  ; had  not  taken  part  in  any 
trial  which  had  led  to  the  effusion  of  blood  ; had  not 
assaulted  any  clerk  or  religious  person  ; were  not 
under  sentence  of  excommunication  or  suspension  ; 
were  not  in  debt  ; were  of  free  condition  and  born  in 
wedlock  ; had  not  in  any  way  contracted  irregularity  ; 
suffered  from  no  incurable  or  contagious  disease. 

After  being  duly  examined  by  the  prior  on  these 
particulars  and  approved,  they  were  admitted  to  one 
year’s  probation,  and  enjoined  to  attend  the  religious 
offices  ; to  behave  soberly  and  modestly  ; to  make 
such  disposal  of  their  property  as  with  the  advice 
of  their  friends  they  thought  prudent  and  wise ; to 
deposit  in  the  convent  library  any  books  they  might 
possess  ; and  finally  not  to  enter  into  a contract  of 
marriage  or  to  take  any  other  religious  habit. 

After  a year’s  instruction  by  the  precentor  and  his 
deputy  in  Latin,  English,  singing,  chanting,  and  reading, 
in  the  Rule  of  the  Order,  in  the  psalms  and  prayers 
to  be  learnt  by  rote,  and  in  the  duties  and  exercises 
of  the  religious  life,  they  were  subjected  to  careful 
examination  by  the  prior  before  making  their  final 
profession. 

Amongst  the  novices  and  junior  monks  must  have 
been  some  real  students  and  thinkers,  for  the  pursuit 
of  learning  and  the  training  of  men  able  to  deal  with 
the  theological,  philosophical,  and  political  problems 
of  the  time  were  a part  of  the  Benedictine  ideal.  To 
a house  so  prominent  in  affairs  both  of  church  and 
state  as  Christ  Church  a supply  of  such  men  was 
especially  necessary.  At  the  close  of  the  middle  ages 
the  Humanists  complained  bitterly  of  monkish  igno- 
rance, as  we  may  see  in  the  writings  of  Erasmus ; but 
the  monasteries,  until  the  time  of  their  decay  and 

249 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

approaching  fall,  were  generally  the  abodes  of  learning. 
Throughout  the  middle  ages  Canterbury  possessed 
two  schools  which  we  should  now  term  secondary. 
The  first  was  the  school  of  the  archbishop,  which 
dated  from  the  seventh  century  and  was  revived 
by  Archbishop  Theodore.  This  school,  which  was 
situated  in  the  parish  of  St.  Alphege  and  had  no 
connection  with  the  priory  of  Christ  Church,  lasted 
till  the  Reformation,  and  was  reconstituted  by 
Henry  VIII  as  the  King’s  School.  It  will  be  remem- 
bered that  Theodore  came  from  Tarsus  in  Cilicia, 
where  the  university  founded  by  the  later  Stoics  still 
existed,  and  that  he  introduced  into  England  the 
study  of  Greek.  The  other  was  the  almonry  school 
for  poor  boys,  which  had  no  such  happy  resurrection. 
But  the  educational  zeal  of  archbishops  and  priors 
went  much  farther  than  this.  It  was  felt  that  more 
advanced  learning  could  be  attained  only  at  a univer- 
sity. In  1331  a hall  cum  camera  et  deporto  (with 
dormitory  and  common  room)  was  hired  at  St.  Peter’s- 
in-the-East,  Oxford,  as  a place  of  study,  and  the 
monks  who  were  sent  thither  were  bidden  to  look  out 
for  learned  novices  to  fill  vacancies  at  home.1  In 
1354  Archbishop  Islip  regrets  that  Christ  Church  has 
no  young  monks  at  Oxford,  and  asks  the  Prior  to  select 
some  for  a university  training.2  The  great  dearth  of 
learned  clerks  at  this  time  was  due  to  the  ravages 
of  the  Black  Death,  which  depopulated  colleges  and 
convents  as  well  as  parishes,  and  was  one  of  the  causes 
which  led  Archbishop  Islip,  in  the  year  1362,  to 
found  Canterbury  College  at  Oxford.3  Three  of  the 
fellows  were  to  be  Christ  Church  monks,  eight  of  them 
secular  students,  and  the  warden  was  to  be  chosen  by 
the  archbishop  out  of  three  names  submitted  by  the 
prior  and  chapter.  Prior  Chillenden  (that  volcano  of 
constructive  energy)  rebuilt  the  place  in  the  reign 

1 Register  L,  f.  10.  2 Ibid.  p.  88. 

3 Stt  “ Fifth  Report  of  the  Historical  MS.  Commission,”  p.  450. 

250 


LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERY 

of  Richard  II,  and  its  picturesque  quadrangle  of  stone 
below  and  timber  and  plaster  above  stood  unchanged 
for  nearly  four  hundred  years.1  It  was  dissolved 
by  Henry  VIII,  and  its  last  remains  carted  away  in 
1775,  but  its  name  is  perpetuated  in  the  Canterbury 
Quadrangle  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

The  college  went  through  many  troubles  due  to 
popes,  kings,  archbishops,  and  wardens ; here  we  will 
find  room  for  one  which  was  due  to  none  of  these. 
There  were  usually  more  rooms  than  Canterbury 
students,  and  these  were  let  to  members  of  other 
convents.  Warden  John  Langdon  writes  to  the  prior 
of  Christ  Church  about  some  insubordinate  monks  from 
the  Abbey  of  Peterborough  : 

I have  had  trobyl  (of)  lat  with  some  of  the  bruderyn  that  be  suggernen 
(sojourning)  with  us,  specyally  with  them  of  Peterburgh,  which  ye 
remember  by  their  ungoodly  demenyng  in  Dom  Will  Chichele  ys 
dayes  went  from  us  to  Glowcetyr  (Gloucester)  College,  and  syth  they 
were  taken  agen  to  us  in  Dom  Thomas  Umfrey  hys  dayes.  And  now 
they  be  as  frowardly  disposed  or  wurse  than  ever  they  were.  The 
seyd  bruderen  of  Peterburgh  be  now  home  at  ther  monastery,  and  shall 
be  till  Michaelmas,  wherefore  I pray  your  fadyrhode  to  write  to  ther 
abbot  desyring  him  to  give  them  charge,  if  they  shall  come  agen  to  us 
that  they  be  guyded  as  scholarys  should  be,  for  they  be  no  studentys. 

And  what  was  worse,  they  set  all  the  other  students 
against  the  authorities. 

The  treasurers’  accounts  show  that  Christ  Church 
was  generous  in  maintaining  the  men  sent  to  Oxford, 
and  there  must  have  been  some  flow  of  intellectual 
life  from  the  college  to  its  parent  monastery.  There 
are  also  entries  of  money  supplied  to  brethren  in 
order  that  they  might  take  advantage  of  foreign  uni- 
versities. In  1304  Andrew  de  Hardres  and  Stephen 
de  Faversham  were  sent  to  Paris.  Prior  William 
Selling  when  a young  man  (1464)  had  leave  to  travel 
in  search  of  university  education.  W.  Hadleigh  in 
1466  was  sent  to  Bologna.  There  is  also  a sad  little 
record  in  1447  of  a monk  of  mathematical  genius  dying 

1 Lyte’s  “ History  of  the  University  of  Oxford,”  p.  180. 


251 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

in  the  infirmary  at  the  early  age  of  thirty.  His  name 
was  John  Trendle.  “Hie  erat  subtilis  valde  fuit  et 
eximius  calculator , unde  et  magnum  de  vij  plane tis  fecit 
lib  rum  N 

Poor  John  Trendle,  whose  death  is  obscurely 
described  in  Latin  as  due  to  some  kind  of  suffocation, 
perhaps  haemorrhage  of  the  lungs,  may  serve  as  our 
conductor  to  the  infirmary,  of  which  the  massive  round 
columns  with  their  rude  capitals  and  ruined  arches  on 
the  north-east  side  of  the  cathedral  form  one  of  the 
most  picturesque  features  of  the  precincts.  They  were 
built  by  Lanfranc,  and  still  bear  the  red  stain  of  the 
great  fire  of  1174.  The  infirmary  was  in  the  form  of 
a large  hall,  and  the  columns  now  remaining  separated 
the  centre  from  the  southern  aisle,  afterwards  made 
into  the  sub-prior’s  lodging.  A similar  range  of 
columns  stood  on  the  north  side  of  the  hall,  but  were 
taken  down  after  the  dissolution — a fate  from  which 
those  on  the  south  side  were  saved  by  being  built  into 
a prebendal  house,  now  removed.  The  chapel  of  the 
infirmary  extends  in  a line  with  the  hall  eastward,  and 
seems  from  the  more  delicate  workmanship  to  have  been 
built  towards  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century.  Several 
arches  remain  on  the  south  side,  owing  to  their  having 
been  (like  those  further  west)  built  into  a house.  The 
east  end,  though  originally  of  Norman  construction, 
was  restored  in  the  Decorated  style  by  Prior  Hathbrand 
about  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century. 

An  apartment  running  north  at  right  angles  to  the 
great  hall,  and  now  forming  a chief  part  of  a prebendal 
house,  was  built  in  1342  by  Prior  Hathbrand,  and 
known  as  the  Mensa  Magistri  Injirmarii.  It  probably 
served  for  the  accommodation  of  that  officer  (as  the 
south  aisle  for  that  of  the  sub-prior),  as  well  as  for  a 
table-hall  or  refectory. 

The  infirmary  had  its  own  cloister,  as  a “ pleasaunce  ” 
for  its  inmates.  This  adjoined  the  western  end  or 
front  of  the  great  hall,  and  its  one  remaining  alley 
252 


Ruins  of  the  Hall  of  the  Infirmary 


LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERY 

forms  part  of  the  Dark  Entry.  The  shafts,  alternately 
plain  and  twisted,  which  support  the  low  round  arches, 
closely  resemble  those  in  the  cloister  of  St.  John 
Lateran  in  Rome.  The  cloister-garth  is  shown  in  the 
early  plans  as  an  oblong,  divided  by  a lattice-fence  into 
two  enclosures,  of  which  the  western  is  marked  Her- 
barium and  dotted  with  shrubs  or  plants,  some  of  which 
were  no  doubt  of  medicinal  value.  The  infirmarer 
was  skilled  in  the  use  of  simples,  and  not  without 
some  knowledge  of  such  surgery  as  the  age  afforded. 
This  officer  was  chosen  by  his  brethren  with  great 
care,  not  only  for  his  medical  aptitudes  but  for  his 
wise  and  gentle  hand  with  the  sick.  No  part  of  the 
Rule  of  St.  Benedict  was  more  kindly,  human,  and 
indeed  profoundly  Christian  than  his  injunctions  to 
care  tenderly  for  the  ailing  and  infirm. 

Persons  unacquainted  with  monastic  customs  express 
surprise  at  the  great  size  of  a Benedictine  infirmary 
relatively  to  the  whole  establishment.  This  at  Christ 
Church,  for  instance,  seems  large  enough  to  contain 
the  entire  community  of  seventy  or  eighty  monks  at 
once.  No  doubt,  in  an  age  of  epidemics,  when  sanita- 
tion and  disinfectants  were  scarcely  known,  the  cases 
of  illness  were  not  few.  But  many  besides  the  down- 
right sick  found  refuge  in  those  vanished  chambers 
and  beneath  those  ruined  arches.  Visiting  or  pilgrim 
monks  from  other  religious  houses  to  whom  it  was 
desired  to  show  fraternal  hospitality  ; relays  of  the 
brethren  who  had  been  “ blooded  ” and  required  a 
less  austere  diet  and  discipline  for  a time  ; aged  monks, 
known  at  Canterbury  as  Stationarii , who  had  out- 
lived their  bodily  activity  were  granted  quarters  in 
the  infirmary  and  waited  on  by  their  juniors — these 
would  constantly  be  found  as  inmates.  The  secular 
clergy  were  sometimes  admitted  : Robert  Asher,  rector 
of  Chartham,  died  there  in  1454  ; also  in  the  same  year 
Nicholas  Chilton,  rector  of  All  Saints’,  Lombard  Street, 
in  the  city  of  London.  One  of  the  rooms  was  called 

255 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

St.  Mary’s,  where  died  in  1516  James  Burton,  who  had 
been  prior  of  Folkestone.  He  had  brought  his  own 
furniture  with  him,  for  there  is  an  inventory  of  it  in  a 
MS.  book1  giving  its  value  as  £/[  18s.  5d.  These  are 
names  which  have  survived  out  of  many  which  have 
perished. 

The  treasurers’  accounts  give  the  salary  of  a 
physician,  one  Master  Giles,  as  £2  13s.  4d.,  and  of  two 
surgeons  ( sirugici ) as  13s.  4d.  each.  Even  allowing  for 
the  difference  in  money  values,  this  seems  a very 
modest  emolument.  On  the  other  hand,  London 
consultants  were  abreast  of  their  modern  representa- 
tives in  fees,  if  not  in  skill,  for  in  1370  Master  W. 
Tankerville  charged  £6  13s.  4d.  (or  about  £133)  for 
visiting  the  lord  prior. 

When  a brother  was  dying,  he  was  laid  in  the 
infirmary  chapel  to  breathe  his  last  upon  a stone  on 
which  a cross  had  been  marked  in  ashes.  Great 
sanctity  or  importance  was  apparently  attached  to 
this  stone,  which  may  have  formed  part  of  the  floor. 
When  for  some  unexplained  cause  it  was  removed  and 
destroyed  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century 
the  loss  was  deeply  felt,  for  there  are  two  entries  in 
Stone’s  “ Chronicle  ” under  the  date  1403  mourn- 
fully recording  the  use  of  a new  stone.  Hugh  Aleyn 
“ hie  non  jacuit  supra  petram  more  antiquo  quia  locus 
illi  antiquus  cincritius  jam  per  annum  dimidium  transac- 
tum  ablatus  et  deletus  est .”  Nicholas  Cantorbery  “ hie 
primus  omnium  jacuit  supra  petram  novam  ante  imaginem 
sancti  crucis  Capella  injir marie  inter iore  ex  quo  lectus 
ille  preciosus  cincritius  sanctorum  patrum  ut  permittitur 
deletus  et  ahlatus  est  anno  m°cccc°iij0 .” 

We  learn  from  the  statutes  of  Archbishop  Winchelsey 
(died  1313)  that  the  infirmarer  ruled  the  deportum. 
He  “ must  every  Sunday  inform  eight  brethren,  as 
many  of  the  lower  as  of  the  upper  of  each  choir,  in 
the  order  of  priority,  that  they  may  take  their  deportum , 
1 Cant.  MS.,  C.  1 1 , Ingram. 


256 


LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERY 

if  they  will,  in  the  next  week.  And  if  any  one  of  the 
eight  decline  to  accept  it,  he  must,  notwithstanding, 
be  present  every  day  of  that  week  at  the  mass  of 
the  Blessed  Mary,  and  on  every  Tuesday  at  the  mass 
of  the  Blessed  Thomas,  together  with  those  who  did 
accept  the  deportum , lest  through  his  refusal  the 
solemnity  of  these  masses  be  diminished.”  This  is 
Willis’s  translation,  and  he  adds  : “ It  thus  appears 
that  as  the  insupportable  tedium  of  the  masses  over- 
balanced the  delights  of  the  deportum , the  archbishop 
hit  upon  the  ingenious  device  of  compelling  the  selected 
monks  to  attend  the  masses,  but  left  them  free  to 
decline  or  accept  the  indulgences.” 

An  official  scarcely  less  important  than  the  almoner 
or  the  infirmarer  was  the  kitchener,  who  presided  (as 
the  name  indicates)  over  the  measurement,  preparation, 
and  distribution  of  t*he  “ portions  ” at  meals.  The 
kitchen  was  a lofty  building,  originally  Norman, 
but  rebuilt  by  Prior  Hathbrand  in  1347.  It  ad- 
joined the  cellarer’s  hall  and  the  Frater,  and  one 
of  its  fireplace  corners  is  incorporated  in  the  south 
side  of  Chillenden  Chambers.  It  had  a scullery  with 
two  windows,  one  through  which  (according  to  the 
Norman  plan)  “ the  trenchers  were  thrown  out  to  be 
washed,”  the  other  “ through  which  the  portions 
were  served  out.”  There  were  also  a larder  and  a 
^ chamber  in  which  the  fish  were  washed.”  In  1335 
the  number  of  servants  throughout  the  cellarer’s 
department  was  found  to  be  excessive,  and  the  following 
revised  and  reduced  list  of  those  allowed  to  the 
kitchener  may  perhaps  be  a measure  of  his  responsibili- 
ties : master-cook  and  his  boy,  second  cook,  hall  cook 
and  his  boy,  the  pottager  and  disher  ( disarius ) and  his 
boy,  the  salter  and  his  boy,  the  stoker  ( focarius ) and  his 
boy,  the  porter  who  brought  vegetables  from  the  town. 
Indeed,  a full  list  of  the  servants  would  be  no  bad 
indication  of  the  magnitude  and  complexity  of  the 
conventual  organisation.  No  court  or  hall  was  with- 

r 257 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

out  its  seneschal,  no  gate  without  its  porter,  no  tower 
without  its  custodian,  no  shrine  without  its  keeper. 
Some  allowance  in  money  or  kind  was  made  to  all  who 
performed  special  services,  and  their  duties  were  laid 
down  in  writing  with  the  utmost  precision.  Thus, 
the  seneschal  of  the  Liberties  was  entitled  (if  a knight) 
to  £10  for  himself  and  his  staff  (familia  sua ),  two  suits 
of  clothes,  and  meals  in  the  cellarer’s  hall  for  himself, 
his  esquire,  and  three  grooms  ( garcionibus ).  He  and 
his  clerk  were  to  have  two  justa  (half-gallons)  of  the 
monks’  beer,  four  wax  candles  and  three  common 
candles  daily  through  the  winter,  and  fodder  for  three 
horses  as  often  as  he  passed  the  night  in  the  precincts. 
If  he  were  not  a knight,  the  .£10  were  to  be  ten  marks 
and  other  allowances  in  proportion.1 

At  the  bottom  of  the  scale  is  the  porter  of  the 
convent  gate,  with  a daily  commons  from  the  kitchen 
and  as  much  corn  as  he  could  hold  in  his  hand  from 
the  bin  of  every  occupied  stall  in  the  precincts.  His 
duties  were  to  hold  his  tongue  and  spread  no  reports 
detrimental  to  the  prior  or  convent ; to  keep  out 
women  and  boys  and  all  but  honest  persons  ; to  shut 
the  gate  at  curfew  and  take  all  keys  to  the  cellarer  ; to 
keep  a sub-porter  at  his  own  charges  (fixed  at  six  marks); 
to  go  on  journeys  with  the  prior  and  cellarer;  to 
accompany  processions  and  keep  back  the  crowd  ; to 
count  the  loads  of  wood  carted  to  the  kitchen,  receiving 
therefor  id.  per  load;  to  carry  beer  from  the  cellar 
to  the  refectory  for  dinner  and  supper  ; to  announce 
the  arrival  of  guests  to  the  cellarer  and  to  take  the 
King’s  briefs  to  the  seneschal  of  the  Liberties.  Then 
follow  various  further  allowances,  in  consideration  of 
these  services,  of  bread,  beer,  and  fodder,  the  last  being 
a single  or  double  handful  from  everybody’s  stable — 
prior’s,  sacrist’s,  chamberlain’s,  cellarer’s — who  could 
be  suspected  of  entertaining  a mounted  guest. 

This  complex  organisation  of  a great  monastery, 
1 Register  J,  f.  508. 


258 


LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERY 

with  its  officers,  estates,  and  workshops,  its  granary 
brewery,  and  bakehouse,  its  hospitality  to  travellers  and 
pilgrims,  its  apparatus  for  learning  and  teaching,  for 
copying  and  illuminating,  its  rights  and  duties  in 
relation  to  bishop  and  crown  and  pope,  was  but  the 
framework  or  setting  for  the  opus  Dei , the  religious 
life,  the  perpetual  “ watchinge  to  God.”  A brief 
sketch,  therefore,  of  the  daily  life  of  the  monks  may 
fitly  conclude  this  chapter. 

The  hours  of  prayer  and  meals  would  vary  a little 
according  to  the  season  of  the  year  and  of  the  Church’s 
calendar,  but  the  following  will  be  enough  to  indicate 
the  usual  routine. 

A little  before  midnight  the  sub-sacrist  rang  a bell 
and  lighted  the  cressets  in  the  dormitory.  The 
brethren  rose,  crossing  themselves,  dressed,  put  on 
their  thick  fur  or  list  shoes  (partly  for  warmth  and 
partly  for  the  observation  of  the  “ greater  silence  ” 
which  lasted  till  prime),  and,  preceded  by  the  juniors 
carrying  lights,  passed  along  the  covered  way  between 
dormitory  and  choir  to  matins.  Part  of  this  covered 
way  is  the  present  communication  between  the  library 
and  the  north  transept. 

Matins  was  preceded  by  the  recitation  of  the  fifteen 
“ gradual  ” psalms,  to  which  great  importance  was 
attached,  and  with  its  elaborate  observances  and 
devotional  silences  would  last  nearly  an  hour.  At  the 
close,  while  the  bells  were  ringing  for  lauds,  there  was 
a brief  interval  during  which  the  monks  might  pace 
the  cloister  for  exercise  after  the  chill  of  the  church. 
Lauds  were  over  by  about  half-past  one,  and  the 
brethren  returned  to  bed  till  six  in  summer  or  seven 
in  winter,  when  they  were  summoned  to  the  choir  for 
the  office  of  prime. 

The  early  mass  which  followed  immediately  after 
prime  was  chiefly  for  the  servants  and  workpeople,  and 
attendance  by  the  monks,  excepting  those  engaged  in 
celebrating,  was  voluntary.  They  occupied  the  time 

259 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

in  washing  and  completing  their  simple  toilet  for  the 
day,  the  juniors  and  novices  being  engaged  in  reading, 
prayer,  or  instruction.  Confessions  were  heard  in  the 
chapter-house ; officials  made  preparation  for  their 
daily  duties ; study  or  writing  went  on  in  the  cloister  till 
the  mixtum  or  light  breakfast  in  the  Frater  at  about  half- 
past eight.  This  was  taken  standing,  and  consisted  of  a 
few  ounces  of  bread  and  a little  wine  or  beer,  and  was 
omitted  on  fast  days  and  in  Lent  and  Advent.  The 
brethren  then  assembled  in  the  cloister  and  went  in 
procession  to  the  morning  mass,  which  was  said  at  the 
matutinal  altar,  and  preceded  or  followed  by  the 
office  of  tierce.  Shortly  after  nine  the  bell  rang  for 
the  daily  chapter,  which  of  course  was  held  in  the 
chapter-house.  Breaches  of  discipline  were  reported  and 
dealt  with  on  the  spot.  The  convent  seal  was  affixed  to 
deeds  or  charters.  Novices  were  presented  to  the  prior 
before  their  profession  and  ordinands  before  their  ordi- 
nation. Decisions  were  made  on  important  affairs  of 
business.  Anniversaries  of  departed  benefactors  or 
saints  were  announced  and  prayer  offered  for  their 
eternal  rest. 

Chapters,  being  daily,  were  usually  short,  and 
afforded  some  interval  before  high  mass.  During 
this  interval  conversation  was  permitted  in  the 
cloister  on  matters  connected  with  the  welfare  of  the 
convent,  and  became  a means  of  forming  and  ascer- 
taining the  feeling  and  judgment  of  the  community 
on  various  courses  of  action  or  administration. 

At  about  ten  o’clock,  or  perhaps  later  in  winter, 
high  mass  was  celebrated  with  great  solemnity  and 
full  ritual.  There  was  a somewhat  curious  order  of 
Chapter  in  1 305  that  if  the  hebdomadary  or  priest  for 
the  week  did  not  possess  a solemn  voice  (solemftnem 
vocem  non  habeat ),  one  of  the  brethren  better  endowed 
in  this  respect  should  read  the  Gospel  for  him  ; and 
that  in  like  manner  a sub-deacon  suitably  gifted  should 
read  the  Epistle. 

260 


LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERY 

We  are  not  told  whether  this  regulation  occasioned 
any  heartburnings ; but  if  it  did  not,  considerable 
credit  is  due  to  the  less  sonorous  members  of  the 
community. 

The  hour  of  sext  seems  to  have  usually  followed 
high  mass,  and  at  perhaps  half-past  eleven  dinner  was 
ready  in  the  Frater.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  refectorian 
to  see  that  the  meal  was  properly  and  punctually 
served,  that  mats  or  rushes  were  supplied  for  the  floor, 
and  44  in  summer  to  throw  flowers,  mint,  or  fennel  into 
the  air  to  make  a sweet  odour.”  The  napery  was  to 
be  clean  and  white,  and  there  were  strict  rules  as  to 
the  courtesies  of  the  table.  There  were  two  courses, 
such  as  pottage  and  fish  or  eggs,  and  on  special  days 
a 44  pittance  ” of  fruit  or  nuts  or  cheese.  One  of  the 
monks  was  told  off  as  reader  of  some  edifying  book 
and  bidden  to  be  clear  and  articulate  ; others  took 
their  turns  week  by  week  as  44  servers  ” and  waited  on 
their  fellows. 

After  dinner  nones  were  said  in  the  choir,  and  in 
summer,  when  the  nightly  allowance  of  sleep  was 
less,  a rest  or  siesta  of  an  hour  in  the  dormitory 
was  enjoined,  and  from  then  till  five  o’clock  was  the 
time  for  work  and  play.  The  studious  took  their  books 
into  the  carrels  or  little  wainscoted  studies  in  the 
cloister,  the  south  alley  of  which  still  shows  the  grooves 
.where  the  mullions  and  tracery  were  glazed  ; though 
Canterbury  cannot  show,  like  Gloucester,  the  stone 
framework  of  the  carrels  as  a part  of  the  structure  of 
the  building.  The  writers  and  illuminators  of  manu- 
script occupied  the  scriptorium  ; and  there  was  some 
provision  for  readers  and  writers  in  the  cubicles  of  the 
dormitory.  The  monkish  architects  and  students  of 
the  arts  and  crafts  pondered  and  wrought  at  their 
designs.  The  officials,  great  and  small,  went  about 
such  affairs  of  the  house  as  required  attention.  Among 
the  latter,  the  granger  looked  to  the  supplies  of  wheat 
flour,  and  the  bartoner  to  the  quality  and  quantity 

261 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

of  malt,  the  brewer  to  his  casks  and  measures  and 
fermenting  beer ; while  the  cloth  bought  by  the 
chamberlain  at  the  fairs  or  from  the  merchants  was 
measured  out  by  his  assistants  for  the  master-tailor. 
Grammar,  singing,  and  other  lessons  were  given  to  the 
novices  in  the  cloister.  Recreation  was  by  no  means 
forgotten.  Under  due  regulation  and  with  the 
requisite  permissions  from  the  Prior,  there  were 
hawking,  hunting,  and  outdoor  games  such  as  bowls 
and  ball.  There  is  mention  in  the  treasurers’  accounts 
of  “ the  huntsman  and  his  man,”  “ greyhounds,”  and 
more  frequently  of  “ players  ” and  “ minstrels.”  The 
plays  were  sometimes  of  a purely  religious  character, 
the  old  miracle  plays,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  year 
1444  (Henry  VI),  “ Given  to  the  town-players  for 
their  play  on  the  day  of  our  Lord’s  Crucifixion, 
3s.  4d.”  But  many  were  in  lighter  vein,  as  the  follow- 
ing will  testify  : “ Given  to  the  boys  who  played  and 
danced  before  the  lord  prior,  6s.  8d.  To  the  players 
who  played  before  the  lord  prior  on  Ascension  Day, 
6s.  8d.  (1444).”  “ To  divers  persons  dancing  ( tripu - 

diantes ) on  the  night  of  the  Translation  of  St.  Thomas, 
13s.  4d.  (1446).”  “ To  the  boys  who  sang  on  the  Feast 
of  the  Epiphany,  3s.  4d.  To  the  boys  of  Thomas  Ware 
playing  before  the  prior,  10s.  (1447).” 

Of  course  the  plays,  minstrels,  and  dancers  were  only 
occasional ; probably  all  amusements  were  more  or 
iess  exceptional,  only  to  be  indulged  in  as  graver  occupa- 
tions permitted  and  as  the  need  of  relaxation  was  felt. 
The  monotony  and  austerity  of  monastic  life  and  the 
strain  of  incessant  religious  offices  made  rest  and  change 
imperative.  This  was  obviously  in  the  mind  of  Arch- 
bishop Walter  Reynolds  when  he  begged  the  Pope’s 
licence  to  convey  to  the  priory  the  manor  of  Caldicote, 
that  the  monks  might  breathe  fresher  air  there  after 
being  blooded  or  otherwise  over-fatigued. 

About  five  o’clock  in  winter  or  six  in  summer  the 
bell  called  the  brethren  to  vespers  in  the  choir  ; after 
262 


LIFE  OF  THE  MONASTERY 

vespers  supper,  consisting  of  one  dish  and  a pittance, 
was  served  in  the  Frater.  This  meal,  however,  was  not 
allowed  excepting  on  festivals  from  All  Saints’  Day 
till  Christmas  and  from  Epiphany  till  Easter.  If  any 


Substructure  of  the  Cellarer's  Gate  House 
Now  part  of  the  house  of  the  Bishop  of  Dover 


monk  felt  unable  to  go  without  food  till  the  next  day, 
he  was  allowed  a little  bread  and  some  kind  of  drink, 
known  as  the  potum  caritatis . Then  came  a reading 
in  the  chapter -house ; a short  interval  during  which 
the  brethren  could  walk  in  the  cloister  or  warm  them- 
selves at  the  fire  in  the  deportum  or  common  recreation 
room  ; and  compline,  the  last  hour  or  office  of  the  day. 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

At  half-past  seven  in  winter  or  half-past  eight  in 
summer  came  the  signal  for  rest,  and  they  went 
silently  to  the  dormitory  and  to  bed. 

There  were,  of  course,  customs  and  regulations  in 
every  monastery  which,  though  deeply  affecting  the 
daily  life  of  the  inmates,  do  not  readily  find  a place  in 
any  account  of  a typical  day’s  routine.  No  monk,  for 
instance,  was  supposed  to  possess  any  personal  pro- 
perty ; it  was  therefore  somewhat  of  a scandal  when 
after  the  death  of  Brother  John  Viel  in  1444  the 
sum  of  .£4  1 6s.  8d.  was  discovered  in  his  cubicle  in 
the  dormitory.  But  small  allowances  of  pocket-money 
were  often  made  on  special  occasions  or  in  acknowledg- 
ment of  special  services,  such  as  riding  abroad  in 
attendance  on  the  prior,  when  the  want  of  a few  coins 
might  be  embarrassing.  On  Maundy  Thursday  the 
almoner  distributed  a number  of  “ signa  ” (or  tokens) 
to  the  brethren  and  servants  of  the  house  for  their 
Easter  offerings,  giving  three  to  the  sub-prior  and 
cellarer,  two  to  the  precentor,  sacrist,  chamberlain, 
and  granger,  four  to  the  infirmarer  and  peniten- 
tiary, and  one  each  to  the  succentor,  third  chanter, 
sub-chamberlain,  hostler  ( hostelario ),  cook,  and  all 
who  carried  a staff  in  the  infirmary.  Sermons  were 
preached  in  the  cathedral  from  time  to  time  by 
the  more  learned  or  eloquent  of  the  brethren,  and  a 
fee  was  paid  to  the  preacher — 3s.  4d.,  or  at  most 
6s.  8d.,  for  a Latin  sermon,  and  twice  as  much  for 
plain  English  to  the  common  people.  It  is  a curious 
reflection  that  in  our  day  it  would  be  much  easier  to 
earn  the  higher  rate  of  remuneration.  Sometimes 
these  sermons  were  preached  by  visiting  friars,  for  in 
1453  we  have  an  entry,  “ to  the  friars  who  preached 
in  our  church  on  divers  occasions  this  year,  29s.  8d.” 
It  would  seem  as  though  friars  did  not  receive,  or 
would  not  accept,  as  much  as  the  monks. 


264 


W.  D. 
C.  E.  W. 


PRIORS  OF  CHRIST  CHURCH 


APPENDIX 

PRIORS  OF  CHRIST  CHURCH 

1080-96.  Henry,  became  abbot  of  Battle,  where  he 
died  in  1102. 

1096-1107.  Ernulf,  a pupil  of  Lanfranc  at  Bee,  re- 
built the  choir  of  Canterbury  Cathedral,  was 
elected  abbot  of  Burgh  (Peterborough)  in  1107  and 
Bishop  of  Rochester  in  1114,  where  he  built  the 
dormitory,  frater,  the  prior’s  gate,  and  part  of  the 
cloister.  He  died  March  14, 1 1 24,  aged  eighty-four. 

1108-26.  Conrad,  beautified  the  interior  of  the 
choir  built  by  his  predecessor,  recast  the  great 
bell  which  Ernulf  had  given,  and  gave  to  the 
church  of  Canterbury  a number  of  valuable  vest- 
ments and  ornaments.  He  became  abbot  of 
St.  Benedict’s,  Hulme,  in  1126,  where  he  died  in 
the  following  year. 

1126-28.  Geoffrey,  became  abbot  of  Dunfermline 
in  1154,  where  he  wrote  a work  called  Historia 
Apostolica . He  died  in  1154. 

1129-37.  Elmer,  is  described  by  Gervase  “ as  a 
man  of  great  simplicity  and  very  religious.”  It 
was  during  his  priorate  that  Anselm’s  choir  was 
dedicated  by  Archbishop  Corbeil  on  May  4,  1130. 
Died  1137. 

1 1 37—43.  Jeremiah,  resigned  under  pressure  brought 
to  bear  upon  him  by  Archbishop  Theobald.  He 
then  joined  the  monastery  of  St.  Augustine,  where 
he  died  and  was  buried. 

1143-49.  Walter  Durdent,  described  as  “ a most 
religious  man  and  learned  in  the  Scriptures.”  In 
1149  he  became  Bishop  of  Chester. 

1149-50.  Walter  the  Little  (Parvus),  had  been 
chaplain  to  Archbishop  Theobald,  by  whom  he 
was  deposed  from  the  priorate  in  1150  and  sent 
to  Gloucester  Abbey. 


265 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

1151-67.  Wybert,  of  whom  Gervase  says  “ well 
known  in  all  good  works,”  chief  amongst  which 
was  the  introduction  into  the  precincts  of  a good 
water-supply.  He  died  September  27,  1167,  and 
was  buried  in  the  chapter-house.  (Somner’s 
“ Antiquities  of  Canterbury,”  p.  141.) 

1167-75.  Odo,  was  Prior  at  the  time  of  the  murder 
of  Archbishop  Becket  ; in  1175  he  was  elected 
abbot  of  Battle. 

11 75-77.  Benedict,  wrote  a life  of  St.  Thomas  of 
Canterbury.  He  became  abbot  of  Peterborough  in 
1177,  and  took  with  him  some  of  the  stones  of  the 
pavement  in  the  transept  “ on  which  the  holy 
martyr  fell,”  and  built  two  altars  with  them  in 
Peterborough  Cathedral,  the  nave  of  which  church 
he  completed ; he  also  built  the  great  abbey 
gate.  He  died  in  1193. 

1177-79.  Herlewin,  had  been  a chaplain  of  Arch- 
bishop Richard.  He  resigned  on  account  of  age 
and  failing  sight. 

1179-86.  Alan,  though  an  Englishman,  spent  some 
years  as  a canon  of  Benevento,  and  entered  the 
priory  of  Christ  Church  in  1174.  During  his 
priorate  the  rebuilding  of  the  choir  was  finished. 
Gervase  says  that  when  Henry  II  came  to  Canter- 
bury in  1186,  the  archbishop  persuaded  the  King 
to  appoint  him  to  the  abbacy  of  Tewkesbury,  as 
a punishment  for  his  resistance  to  Baldwin’s 
college  at  Hackington. 

1186-88.  Honorius,  had  been  chaplain  to  Arch- 
bishop Baldwin,  but  as  Prior  vigorously  opposed 
the  Archbishop’s  scheme  for  founding  a college 
of  canons  at  Hackington.  For  this  purpose  he 
went  to  Rome  to  lay  the  appeal  of  the  convent 
before  Pope  Urban  III.  fie  died  of  plague  at 
Velletri  on  October  21,  1188,  and  was  buried  in 
the  cloister  of  the  Lateran  at  Rome. 

1189  (From  October  6 to  November  30).  Roger 

2 66 


PRIORS  OF  CHRIST  CHURCH 

Norris,  a partisan  of  Baldwin,  by  whom  he  was 
thrust  into  the  priorate  against  the  will  of 
the  monks.  In  1189  the  archbishop  was  com- 
pelled to  depose  him,  and  in  the  following  year 
he  was  appointed  abbot  of  Evesham  by  King 
Richard  I.  At  Evesham  he  lived  a scandalous 
life,  and  was  deposed  by  Archbishop  Hubert 
Walter  in  1213. 

1190.  Osbert  of  Bristol,  intruded  by  Baldwin.  His 
death  occurred  a few  weeks  after  his  appointment. 

1 191-1213.  Geoffrey  II,  as  sub-prior  had  represented 
the  convent  during  the  absence  of  Prior  Honorius, 
and  had  taken  an  active  part  in  the  struggle 
with  Archbishop  Baldwin ; as  prior  he  headed 
the  opposition  to  Archbishop  Hubert.  When  the 
monks  of  Christ  Church  were  exiled  by  King 
John,  Geoffrey  retired  to  the  abbey  of  Pontigny. 
He  died  at  sea  when  returning  to  England  in 
I2I3- 

1 2 1 3-22.  Walter  I II,  during  whose  priorate  the  trans- 
lation of  the  relics  of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury 
was  carried  out  (July  7,  1220).  In  the  same  year 
Pope  Honorius  granted  to  the  priors  of  Christ 
Church  the  right  to  wear  the  ring  and  mitre. 

1222-32.  John  of  Sittingbourne,  was  elected  by 
the  monks  to  succeed  Archbishop  Richard 
(Wethershede)  in  1232,  but  the  election  was  set 
aside  by  the  Pope.  Much  work  was  done  in  the 
cloister  during  his  priorate.  Died  July  18,  1234. 

1232-38.  John  of  Chatham,  continued  the  work 
in  the  cloister.  He  resigned  his  office  in  con- 
sequence of  certain  alleged  tampering  with  the 
monastic  charters. 

1239-44.  Roger  of  Lee,  elected  January  7,  1239, 
after  a vacancy  of  nearly  a year  ; built  the  ambula- 
tory under  the  prior’s  chapel.  Resigned  in  1244, 
but  continued  an  inmate  of  the  convent  until  his 
death,  which  occurred  on  August  24,  1258. 


267 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

1244-58.  Nicholas  of  Sandwich,  enthroned  Arch- 
bishop Boniface  in  the  presence  of  King  Henry  III 
and  Queen  Eleanor  in  1249.  Resigned  in  1258, 
and  was  appointed  precentor  in  1262,  but,  “ being 
inaudible,”  he  was  removed  from  that  office,  and 
died  in  1289. 

1258-63.  Roger  of  St.  Alphege,  built  the  prior’s 
chapel  over  the  south  alley  of  the  infirmary 
cloister.  Died  September  29,  1263,  and  was 
buried  on  the  north  side  of  the  chapel  of  St. 
Thomas. 

1264-74.  Adam  of  Chillenden.  He  was  elected 
to  the  primacy  on  the  death  of  Archbishop 
Boniface  by  the  monks,  but  placed  his  resignation 
in  the  hands  of  the  Pope  on  account  of  the  violent 
opposition  of  the  King  to  his  candidature.  He 
died  September  13,  1274. 

1274-84.  Thomas  Ringmere,  had  been  chaplain  to 
Archbishop  Kilwardby ; attempted  to  reform 
the  discipline  of  the  monastery,  but  without 
success.  Resigned  in  1284  and  joined  the  Cis- 
tercian abbey  of  Beaulieu  in  Hampshire,  and  later 
became  a hermit  at  Brookwood  in  Windsor  Forest. 
Died  c.  1 31 1. 

1284-1331.  Henry  of  Eastry,  ruled  the  monastery 
for  forty-seven  years  and  was  a great  benefactor 
to  the  house.  A list  of  building  works  undertaken 
by  this  Prior  is  in  Register  I,  f.  212,  and  is  printed 
in  Arch&ologia  Cantiana , vol.  vii.  pp.  185-87. 
He  was  buried  in  the  cathedral  “ near  the 
image  of  St.  Osyth,”  but  the  position  of  this 
image  is  unknown. 

1 33 1:— 38.  Richard  Oxenden,  the  second  son  of 
Soloman  de  Oxenden  of  Nonington.  Died 
August  4,  1338,  and  was  buried  in  St.  Michael’s 
Chapel. 

1 338-70.  Robert  Hathbrand,  rebuilt  the  kitchen, 
the  hall  of  the  infirmary  known  as  the  “ Master’s 


268 


PRIORS  OF  CHRIST  CHURCH 

Table,”  and  remodelled  the  chancel  of  the 
infirmary  chapel.  He  acted  as  tutor  to  two  of 
the  sons  of  King  Edward  III.  During  his 
priorate  Canterbury  College  in  Oxford  was 
founded  by  Archbishop  Islip  (1363).  He  died 
July  16,  1370,  and  was  buried  in  St.  Michael’s 
Chapel. 

1 370-76.  Richard  Gillingham,  during  his  priorate 
the  convent  paid  £ 1000  to  King  Edward  III  to 
release  their  church  estates  from  the  exactions  of 
the  King’s  justices  after  the  death  of  Archbishop 
Whittlesey.  He  died  August  31,  1376. 

1 376-77.  Stephen  Mongeham,  assisted  at  the  funeral 
of  Prince  Edward  (the  Black  Prince)  in  13 76. 

1 377~9I • John  Finch,  obtained  from  the  Pope  the 
privilege  of  wearing  the  pontifical  sandals,  of 
carrying  the  pastoral  staff,  and  of  giving  benedic- 
tion in  the  absence  of  the  archbishop.  In  his 
days  the  Norman  nave  of  the  cathedral  was 
pulled  down  and  a new  nave  was  commenced. 
He  died  January  25,  1391,  and  was  buried  in  the 
chapel  of  the  Martyrdom. 

1391-1411.  Thomas  Chillenden,  educated  at  Paris, 
Bologna,  and  Oxford  ; doctor  of  canon  and  civil 
law  ; called  by  Leland  “ the  greatest  builder  of 
a prior  that  ever  was  in  Christes  Church.” 
A list  of  his  building  operations  and  other  good 
works  is  inscribed  on  the  account  roll  of  the  year 
of  his  death,  and  the  greater  part  has  been  printed 
by  Willis,  ut  supra,  and  by  Dr.  Sheppard  in 
Liter ce  Cantuarienses , R.S.,  vol.  iii.  pp.  112-22. 
He  died  August  15,  1411,  and  was  buried  in  the 
nave  of  the  cathedral  next  to  the  tomb  of  Arch- 
bishop Arundel. 

1411-27.  John  Wodnesburgh,  was  a man  of  good 
business  habits,  who  paid  off  all  the  debts  of 
his  predecessors  and  continued  several  of  the 
works  left  unfinished  by  Chillenden.  He  died 

269 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

in  his  study  called  the  “ Gloriet  ” on  February  28, 
1427-28,  and  was  buried  in  the  nave  at  the  head  of 
his  predecessor. 

1428-37.  William  Molash,  “ a man  of  great  purity 
and  religion.”  He  was  warden  of  Canterbury 
College  in  Oxford  from  1413  to  1426.  During 
his  priorate  the  first  stone  of  the  great  central 
tower  was  laid  on  August  4,  1433.  Molash  died 
February  19,  1437.  The  place  of  his  burial  is 
not  recorded,  but  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  large 
marble  slab  bearing  the  matrix  for  a brass  effigy 
of  an  ecclesiastic  in  the  floor  of  the  southern  aisle 
of  the  crypt  marks  his  tomb. 

1437-46.  John  Sarisbury,  before  his  election  as 
Prior  had  been  warden  of  Canterbury  College. 
He  died  January  19,  1446,  and  was  buried  at 
the  upper  end  of  the  nave. 

1446-49.  John  Elham,  died  February  21,  1449, 

and  was  buried  in  the  nave  at  the  head  of  Prior 
Wodnesburgh. 

1449-68.  Thomas  Goldston  I,  previously  warden  of 
Canterbury  College.  Built  the  new  Lady  Chapel 
opening  out  of  the  north  transept,  in  which  he 
was  buried.  He  died  August  6,  1468. 

1468-71.  John  Oxney.  Died  July  2,  1471. 

1471- 72.  William  Petham.  Died  August  19,  1472. 

1472- 94.  William  Sellinge.  A native  of  Sellinge, 
near  Hythe,  and  probably  a son  of  William 
Tilley  of  the  same  place.  Was  a student  of 
Canterbury  College,  and  afterwards  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Bologna,  where  he  obtained  the  doc- 
torate in  divinity.  Somner  says  of  him  that 
“ out  of  his  affection  to  antiquities  he  gathered 
together  wherever  he  came  in  Italy  all  the  ancient 
authors,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  and  brought 
them  over  into  England  and  into  Canterbury.” 
Amongst  his  building  works  were  the  erection  of 
a great  part  of  the  central  tower  and  the  room 


270 


PRIORS  OF  CHRIST  CHURCH 

over  the  Prior’s  gateway.  He  died  December  4, 
1494,  and  was  buried  in  the  north-west  transept. 

1495-15 1 7.  Thomas  Goldston  II,  S.T.P.,  had  been 
warden  of  Canterbury  College.  He  was  a great 
builder,  and  a list  of  his  works  and  benefactions 
is  printed  in  Wharton’s  Anglia  Sacra , vol.  i. 
pp.  146-47.  The  latest  was  the  erection  of  the 
great  gateway  on  the  south  side  of  the  precincts. 
He  died  September  1517,  and  was  buried  beside 
his  predecessor. 

1517-40.  Thomas  Goldwell.  He  was  educated  at 
the  Universities  of  Paris  and  Louvain.  At  the 
suppression  of  the  priory  Goldwell  retired  with  a 
pension  of  £ 80  a year. 

C.  E.  W. 


271 


CHAPTER  XII 


THE  CATHEDRAL  CHURCH  ON  THE 
EVE  OF  THE  REFORMATION 

Before  we  pass  on  to  Henry  VIIFs  new  foundation, 
and  to  those  changes  of  faith  and  ritual  which  swept 
away  so  much  that  the  mediaeval  Church  had  highly 
prized,  it  may  be  well  to  attempt  a reconstruction  of 
the  general  aspect  of  the  cathedral  church — its  altars, 
shrines,  relics,  chantries,  tombs,  and  ornaments — before 
the  destructive  besom  of  the  Reformers  was  applied. 

In  our  task  we  shall  have  the  assistance  of  Erasmus, 
who  paid  a visit  to  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,  in 
1513  ; and  we  can  supplement  the  account  given  in 
his  Perigrinatio  Religionis  ergo  1 by  information  drawn 
from  other  sources. 

Erasmus  says  : “ The  great  church  of  St.  Thomas 
rears  itself  up  to  the  sky  so  majestically  that  it  strikes 
us  with  religious  awe  even  from  a distance,  eclipsing 
the  splendour  of  the  older,  and  formerly  more  sacred, 
place  [St.  Augustine’s].  Two  [sic]  immense  towers 
salute  the  visitor  from  afar,  thrilling  the  air  far  and 
wide  with  the  clang  of  brazen  bells.  In  the  porch, 
which  is  toward  the  south,  stand  three  men — in 
armour  and  carved  in  stone — who  with  their  impious 
hands  murdered  the  most  holy  man,  their  names, 
Tusci,  Fusci,  Berri,  being  subjoined.” 

By  “ in  the  porch  ” Erasmus  doubtless  means  “ on  the 
porch,”  and  we  may  picture  to  ourselves  the  images  of 
the  three  knights,  Tracy,  Fitzurse,  and  Le  Breton  (why 
Hugh  de  Moreville  was  omitted  we  cannot  guess), 
1 D.  Erasmus,  Colloquia  (Amsterdam,  1662),  374. 


272 


EVE  OF  THE  REFORMATION 

occupying  the  now  empty  panel  over  the  outer  door- 
way. Erasmus  does  not  mention  the  little  bas-relief 
representation  on  the  other  panel  of  the  altar  of  the 
Sword  Point,  but  it  was  there,  and  in  a better  state  of 
preservation  than  it 
now  is ; for  in  ad- 
dition to  the  ravages 
of  the  hand  of  Time, 
it  formed  a target  for 
the  bullets  of  the 
Parliamentary  soldiers 
during  the  Great  Re- 
bellion. 

Erasmus’s  account 
of  the  nave  is  dis- 
appointing. He  says 
there  was  nothing  to 
be  seen  there  except 
certain  books  chained 
to  the  pillars,  amongst 
which  he  noticed  the 
Gospel  of  Nicodemus 
and  the  tomb  “ of 
some  one  whose  name 
I do  not  know.” 

This  is  remarkable, 
because  the  nave  con- 
tained the  tombs  of  Altar  of  the  Sword  Point 

two  Archbishops,  viz. 

those  of  Simon  Islip  and  William  Whittlesey,  whose 
raised  monuments  with  their  effigies  of  brass  were 
conspicuous  objects  at  the  upper  end  of  the  central 
alley — Islip  on  the  north  side  and  Whittlesey  on  the 
south ; and  he  must  also  have  seen  a number  of 
memorials  to  fifteenth-century  priors  on  the  floor  of 
the  church. 

In  addition  to  the  books  chained  to  the  pillars  there 
was  also  a money-box  for  the  offerings  of  pilgrims 

s 273 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

“ in  the  middle  of  the  nave  ” ( De  Pixide  in  medio 
navi  ecclesie  Vd  ob.  “ Sacrist’s  Accounts,”  1462). 

We  should  have  been  glad  to  have  some  account  of 
the  three  chantry  chapels,  two  of  which — Bucking- 
ham’s, near  the  site  of  the  present  font,  and  Arundel’s, 
on  the  same  side  further  east — Erasmus  must  have 
seen,  but  he  says  nothing  about  them  ; perhaps 
because  at  the  date  he  wrote  such  adjuncts  were 
common  enough  in  most  churches.  Nor  does  he  men- 
tion the  Consistory  Court  enclosed  by  screens  beneath 
the  north-western  tower.  He  has  something  to  say 
about  the  iron  gates  and  grille  which  shut  out  the  lay 
people  from  the  upper  part  of  the  church,  but  does 
not  notice  the  great  Rood,  which  with  its  attendant 
images  was  suspended  between  the  eastern  piers  of 
the  tower  over  the  loft  or  fulpitum  which  surmounted 
the  choir  screen.  Nor  does  he  mention  the  altar  of  the 
Holy  Cross — the  people’s  altar — which  stood  probably 
upon  the  first  platform  in  the  flight  of  steps  leading 
to  the  choir,  and  where  certain  relics  were  kept  “ in 
a wooden  desk  partly  covered  with  silver-gilt,  with 
gems  and  a cross  in  the  midst,”  1 

There  was,  moreover,  a second  altar  of  the  Holy 
Cross,  described  in  the  monastic  accounts  as  “ on  the 
south  side  of  the  church,”  which  perhaps  stood 
beneath  a second  Rood  at  the  end  of  the  south  aisle. 

Somewhere  in  the  nave  there  was  a small  image  of 
St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury,  which  was  remarkable  for 
the  fact  that  the  saint  was  represented  as  holding  four 
swords  in  his  hand,2  but  Erasmus  did  not  notice  it. 

Passing  through  the  iron  gates  above  referred  to, 
Erasmus  and  his  friend  Colet  were  conducted  to  the 
scene  of  the  martyrdom  in  the  north-west  transept, 
which  was  reached  by  way  of  the  tunnel-like  passage 

1 “ Inventories  of  Christ  Church,”  op.  cit.  p.  38. 

2 “ In  uno  parvo  ymagine  in  navi  ecclesie  in  honorem  sancti  Thome 
cum  quatuor  gladiis  in  manu  sua  vs  iiijd.”  Stone’s  “Chronicle,”  ed. 
M.  R.  James,  op.  cit.  p.  18 

274 


EVE  OF  THE  REFORMATION 

beneath  the  steps  leading  to  the  choir.  Here  they 
were  shown  the  altar  of  the  Sword  Point,  “ erected 
on  the  very  place  where  the  holy  man  fell.”  Erasmus 
describes  the  altar  as  “ a wooden  one  sacred  to  the 
Holy  Virgin,  insignificant  and  not  worth  visiting  save 
as  a monument  of  antiquity,  putting  to  shame  the 
luxury  of  these  times.  There  the  holy  man  is  said  to 
have  uttered  a last  farewell  to  the  Virgin  when  death 
was  nigh  at  hand.  On  the  altar  is  the  point  of  the 
sword  with  which  the  head  of  the  most  excellent 
prelate  was  cleft  and  his  brain  mixed  together  in  order 
that  his  death  might  be  more  speedy.  The  sacred 
rust  of  this  sword  from  love  of  the  martyr  we  religiously 
kissed.” 

The  point  of  Richard  the  Breton’s  sword  seems 
usually  to  have  stood  upon  or  over  the  altar,  and  had 
a special  set  of  coverings,  that  were  withdrawn  on 
such  occasions  as  the  relic  was  displayed.  Amongst 
other  relics  kept  in  the  Martyrdom  were  two  golden 
rings,  formerly  belonging  to  or  worn  by  St.  Thomas 
and  St.  Edmund  the  Archbishop,  which  are  described 
as  “ of  great  and  wonderful  virtue  for  relieving  the 
eyes  of  sick  persons.”  1 

From  the  Martyrdom  Erasmus  descended  to  the 
crypt,  where  he  was  shown  a head  enclosed  in  silver 
which  he  took  to  be  a reliquary  enclosing  the  pierced 
^skull  of  St.  Thomas,  but  which  was  more  probably 
the  new  relic  of  St.  Dunstan  which  had  recently  been 
enclosed  in  a mitred  bust  of  silver,  since  there  is 
no  other  record  of  any  part  of  St.  Thomas’s  head 
being  kept  in  the  crypt.  He  was  also  shown  the 
coffin-plate  of  the  martyr  with  the  inscription  “ Thomas 
of  Acre,”  and  in  the  gloom  which  surrounded  the 
saint’s  tomb  he  noticed  “ the  hair  shirt,  the  girdle, 
and  the  drawers  by  means  of  which  the  saint  sub- 
dued the  flesh  ” hanging  from  the  pillars.  From  the 

1 “ Inventories  of  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,”  Messrs.  Legg  and 
Hope  (London,  1902),  pp.  125-37. 


275 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

crypt  he  was  conducted  to  the  choir,  where  the 
great  almonry  or  relic  cupboard  on  the  north  side 
near  the  high  altar  1 was  unlocked  and  its  con- 
tents displayed.  “ It  is  wonderful  to  tell,”  says 
Erasmus,  “ how  many  bones  were  brought  out 
thence — skulls,  jawbones,  teeth,  hands,  fingers,  and 
whole  arms.”  “ A most  concise  summary,”  says  Mr. 
St.  John  Hope,  “of  the  contents  of  this  cupboard,  as 
set  forth  in  the  inventory.”  The  inventory  in  question 
was  drawn  up  when  Henry  of  Eastry  was  prior,  but  it 
probably  represents  pretty  fairly  what  the  cupboard 
contained  at  a later  date,  and  in  order  to  give  some 
idea  of  the  extraordinary  nature  and  extent  of  the 
collection  we  will  quote  here  Mr.  Hope’s  able  analysis 
of  the  said  inventory  : 

First  in  order  are  three  heads  of  St.  Blaise,  St.  Furse,  and  St.  Austro- 
berta,  each  enclosed  in  silver-gilt.  Next  come  eleven  arms  of  saints, 
each  encased  in  an  arm-shaped  reliquary  of  silver-gilt.  Then  follow 
fifty-six  separate  reliquaries  of  various  kinds  and  shapes,  containing 
every  conceivable  class  of  relic.  Seven  of  them  were  in  the  form  of 
crosses,  of  which  four  were  double-barrelled  as  containing  particles  of 
the  true  Cross ; a fifth  was  St.  Andrew’s  cross,  because  it  contained 
relics  of  that  saint ; and  a sixth  was  a cross  of  St.  Peter  with  reversed 
image,  enclosing  some  of  St.  Peter’s  cross ; the  other  cross  was  a gold 
one  full  of  relics  given  by  Stephen  Langton.  In  a crystal  tube  was  a 
thorn  of  our  Lord’s  crown. 

The  second  group  of  relics,  which  was  probably  kept  in  one  half  of 
the  great  double  cupboard,  begins  with  four  single  items,  namely, 
Aaron’s  rod,  a “ table  ” (probably  a slab)  from  the  tomb  of  the  Blessed 
Mary,  the  super-altar,  and  a chalice  made  of  crystal,  gold,  and  enamel, 
with  a paten  de  perle  that  once  belonged  to  St.  Alphege.  Next  come 
nineteen  filactria  or  reliquaries  that  could  be  hung  up  by  cords,  made  of 
crystal,  copper,  silver  or  silver-gilt,  and  containing  bones  of  various 
saints.  In  two  of  them  were  relics  of  St.  Thomas.  The  next  on  the 
list  are  a small  silver-gilt  cup  containing  St.  Thomas’s  pall,  and  a round 
glass  in  which  was  some  of  the  dust  of  his  body.  Among  the  seven 
following  items  is  an  oblong  crystalline  stone  set  in  silver-gilt,  under 
which  was  some  of  the  saint’s  flesh  and  skin.  But  a much  more  impor- 


1 The  relic  cupboard  stood  on  a raised  platform,  as  shown  in  Hollar’s 
plan  published  in  Dugdale’s  Monasticon , i.  18,  between  the  tombs  of 
Archbishops  Chicheley  and  Bourchier. 

276 


EVE  OF  THE  REFORMATION 

tant  lot  of  relics  was  preserved  in  the  next  reliquary,  a great  ivory  coffer 
guarded  by  a lock.  This  contained  the  simple  white  mitre  in  which 
St.  Thomas  had  been  buried,  another  white  mitre  he  was  wont  to  use 
on  simple  feasts,  his  gloves,  his  sandals  of  blue  embroidered  with  gold 
roses,  besants,  and  crescents;  his  buskins  of  black  samite,  his  famous 
hair  shirt,  and  some  of  his  bed  and  girdle.1  Two  packets  of  other  relics 
of  the  saint,  wrapped  in  white  silk,  were  likewise  enclosed  in  the  coffer. 
The  next  three  items  in  the  list  were  standing  “ tables  99  of  silver-gilt 
containing  various  relics.  The  remaining  reliquaries,  chiefly  of  ivory, 
and  copper  boxes  or  caskets,  need  only  be  mentioned  on  account  of  the 
miscellaneous  curiosities  preserved  in  some  of  them,  such  as  : 

Some  of  the  stone  upon  which  the  Lord  stood  when  He  ascended  into 
Heaven. 

Some  of  the  Lord’s  table  upon  which  He  made  the  Supper. 

Some  of  the  prison  whence  the  angel  of  the  Lord  snatched  the  blessed 
Apostle  Peter. 

Some  wool  which  Mary  the  Virgin  had  woven. 

Some  of  the  oak  upon  which  Abraham  [sic]  climbed  to  see  the  Lord. 

And  some  of  the  clay  out  of  which  God  fashioned  Adam. 

Perhaps  it  was  as  well  that  these  extraordinary 
“ curiosities  ” did  not  meet  the  eye  of  Erasmus,  who 
tells  us  that  before  the  contents  of  the  relic  cupboard 
were  exhausted  the  enthusiasm  of  the  showman  was 
so  damped  by  the  restiveness  of  Colet  that  he  shut  up 
his  wares  and  the  pilgrims  passed  on  to  view  the 
glories  of  the  high  altar.  After  viewing  the  silver- 
gilt  tabula  and  other  ornaments  of  the  high  altar, 
the  visitors  proceeded  “ to  the  vaulted  chamber 
junder  the  steps  which  led  to  the  archbishop’s 
throne.  This  chamber  is  entered  from  the  north 
side  of  the  presbytery  immediately  opposite  the  vestry. 
It  retains  its  ancient  floor  of  encaustic  tiles,  and  has 
two  grated  windows  looking  into  the  crypt,  but  none 
of  its  old  fittings  remain.  From  this  treasury 
Erasmus  and  his  friends  were  led  into  the  vestry 
in  the  chapel  of  St.  Andrew,  and  possibly  into  the 
inner  vestry  or  treasury  beyond,  where  the  muniments 
and  more  precious  jewels  were  kept.  ‘ Good  God  ! ’ 
exclaims  Erasmus,  c what  pomp  was  there  of  silk 

1 The  hair  shirt  and  girdle  had  apparently  been  transferred  to  the 
crypt  in  Erasmus’s  days. 


277 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

vestments  ! What  wealth  of  gold  candlesticks  ! In 
the  same  place  we  saw  the  staff  of  the  blessed  Thomas  ! 
It  seemed  to  be  a cane  covered  with  silver  plates  ; it 
was  of  little  weight,  no  workmanship,  nor  any  higher 
than  to  the  girdled  He  says  he  saw  no  cross,  but  was 
shown  the  'pallium , which  he  asserts  was  all  of  silk, 
though  of  coarse  thread  and  unornamented  with  gold 
or  gems  ; also  a handkerchief  retaining  manifest  traces 
of  sweat  wiped  from  the  neck  and  of  blood.” 1 Perhaps 
time  did  not  allow  the  visitors  to  see  the  magnificent 
vestments  stored  in  the  presses  and  cope  chests,  of 
which  the  church  had  a wonderful  store  ; at  any  rate, 
Erasmus  says  nothing  about  them.  Of  copes  no 
fewer  than  two  hundred  and  sixty-two  are  enumerated 
in  an  inventory  which  was  taken  at  the  time  of  the 
suppression  of  the  priory.  This  extraordinary  pro- 
fusion of  copes  is  partly  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that 
it  was  one  of  the  privileges  of  the  church  of  Canterbury 
to  receive  from  every  suffragan  bishop  of  the  southern 
province  at  his  consecration  “ a decent  cope  ” and  a 
profession  of  canonical  obedience.  The  abbots  of 
religious  houses  situated  in  the  diocese  of  Canterbury 
also  offered  “ profession  copes  ” to  the  mother-church. 
But  the  most  magnificent  specimens  of  the  em- 
broiderer’s art  were  obtained  by  the  gift  of  arch- 
bishops, priors,  and  even  of  simple  monks.  Some 
of  them  were  actually  the  handiwork  of  the  brethren  ; 
for  Stone  tells  us  that  Brother  Thomas  Selmeston,  who 
died  of  the  plague  in  1419,  was  the  most  highly 
skilled  embroiderer  in  the  kingdom,  and  says  that  in 
his  day  many  examples  of  Selmeston’s  art  remain  in  the 
vestry  of  the  church,  “ notably  the  golden  chasuble  of 
Thomas  Herne  and  the  vestment  of  Richard  Ruton.” 2 
From  the  vestry  Erasmus  and  his  friend  were 
conducted  to  the  “ upper  parts  ” of  the  church — 
that  is,  to  the  retro-choir.  Here  he  saw  first,  “ in 

1 “ Inventories  of  Christ  Church,5’  op.  cit.  p.  42. 

2 Stone’s  “ Chronicle,”  ut  supra , p.  10. 


278 


EVE  OF  THE  REFORMATION 

a certain  little  chapel”  (the  circular  chapel  of  the 
Holy  Trinity  at  the  extreme  east  end  of  the  church), 
the  relic  called  the  “ corona,”  which  he  describes 
as  “ the  whole  face  of  the  most  holy  man,  gilt 
and  ornamented  with  many  gems.”  This  was  the 
mitred  bust  of  St.  Thomas  which  enclosed  what  at 
Canterbury  was  always  called  Corona — i.e.  St.  Thomas’s 
crown — but  was  known  to  the  world  at  large  from  its 
shape  as  the  Caput  sancti  Thome  or  St.  Thomas’s  head. 
Finally,  after  visiting  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas — of 
which  a sufficient  description  has  been  given  in  a 
previous  chapter — the  visitors,  before  leaving  the 
church,  returned  to  the  crypt  to  see  the  chapel  of  the 
Virgin,  and  paid  a second  visit  to  the  vestry  to  inspect 
some  other  relics  of  St.  Thomas. 

We  will  now  part  company  from  Erasmus  and  take 
a brief  survey  of  the  church  on  our  own  account. 

The  arrangement  of  the  choir  will  first  occupy  our 
attention.  At  the  western  entrance  we  are  met  by 
the  usher  of  the  choir  door  ( ostiarius  chori),  who,  as 
we  pass  beneath  the  rood  screen  sprinkles  us  with  holy 
water  with  the  silver-handled  aspersorium , which  hangs 
by  a chain  against  the  inner  jamb  of  the  arch.1  On 
entering  the  choir,  our  attention  is  at  once  drawn  to 
the  arras  hangings  which  are  suspended  from  hooks 
fixed  in  the  pillars,  above  the  traceried  stonework  of 
Trior  Eastry’s  lateral  screens.2  Of  these  hangings  the 
church  possessed  several  sets.  If,  however,  our  visit 
should  be  on  one  of  the  greater  festivals,  then  the 
choir  would  be  decked  with  the  “ faire  new  hanging 
of  rich  tapestrie,”  which  had  been  recently  given 
by  Richard  Dering,  the  cellarer,  and  Prior  Thomas 

1 “ One  holy  water  stock  w*  a sprynkeller  of  sylver,  lxxvoz.” 
Inventory  of  1540.  The  marks  made  by  the  fraying  of  the  chain  from 
which  the  asperge  was  suspended  are  still  visible  on  the  left-hand  side 
of  the  western  jamb  of  the  outer  archway  of  the  choir  screen. 

2 The  hooks  are  shown  in  a picture  of  the  choir  painted  by  Thomas 
Johnson,  1657,  a reproduction  of  which  was  published  by  the  Society 
of  Antiquaries  in  1911. 

279 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Goldston  II.  This  tapestry  was  in  six  pieces,  three  on 
the  north  side  and  three  on  the  south,  and  displayed 
respectively  scenes  from  the  life  of  our  Lord  and  of  the 
blessed  Virgin  Mary.  All  six  pieces  survived  the 
Reformation,  and  were  in  use  when  Somner  pub- 
lished his  “ Antiquities  of  Canterbury  ” in  1640,  but 
within  the  next  decade  they  were  cleared  out  by  the 
Puritans.  After  their  alienation  from  Christ  Church, 
they  appear  to  have  been  taken  across  the  water  and 
sold  in  Paris  to  a canon  of  the  cathedral  of  Aix  in 
Provence,  where  they  are  still  preserved.1 

These  hangings  were  suspended  (as  we  have  already 
stated)  above  the  double  row  of  stalls  north  and  south 
of  the  choir.  It  is  doubtful  whether  in  the  pre- 
Reformation  cathedral  there  were  any  return  stalls  at 
the  western  end  of  the  choir.  It  has  generally  been 
supposed  that  the  stall  of  the  archbishop  was  upon 
the  right-hand  side  of  the  door  in  the  rood  screen,  and 
that  of  the  prior  on  the  left-hand  side;  but  the 
records  of  the  installation  of  archbishops  give  no 
confirmatory  evidence  of  this,  since  the  procedure  on 
these  occasions  seems  to  have  been  to  place  the  arch- 
bishop (after  his  enthronisation  in  the  patriarchal 
chair)  first  in  his  stall  or  throne  at  the  eastern  end  of 
the  monastic  stalls  upon  the  south  side  of  the  choir, 
and  afterwards  in  the  prior’s  stall,  which  occupied  a 
corresponding  position  on  the  north  side.  It  is  true 
that  under  the  wainscot  at  the  west  end  of  the  choir 
there  are  some  mutilated  remains  of  canopies  on 
Eastry’s  screen-work  which  have  been  taken  as  indica- 
tions that  the  western  screen  was  provided  with  stalls ; 
but  we  think  that  it  is  more  probable  that  these 
canopies  surmounted  niches  for  images.2 

1 See  a paper  by  Dr.  M.  R.  James  on  “ The  Tapestries  at  Aix  in 
Provence,”  in  the  “ Transactions  of  the  Cambridge  Antiquarian  Society,” 
vol.  xi. 

2 Stone,  op.  cit.  p.  18,  mentions  the  following  images  in  the  choir  : 
St.  Thomas,  St.  Edmund,  St.  Anselm,  St.  iElfric,  St.  Plegmund,  and  St. 
Otho.  He  also  says  there  were  twelve  others,  but  does  not  name  them. 

280 


EVE  OF  THE  REFORMATION 

But  to  proceed  with  our  survey.  Advancing  east- 
wards, we  reach  the  floor  of  the  presbytery  by  an 
ascent  of  two  steps  between  the  sixth  piers  of  the  main 
arcade,  noticing  on  our  way  the  great  desk  for  the 
chanters  or  rulers  of  the  choir,  set  in  a socket  cut  in  a 
semicircular  projection  in  the  lower  step.1  The 
presbytery  occupies  the  space  between  the  transepts, 
from  the  eastern  piers  of  which  and  between  the  tombs 
of  Archbishops  Kemp  and  Chicheley  was  suspended 
the  great  curtain  which  during  the  season  of  Lent  shut 
off  the  view  of  the  high  altar.2  By  a further  ascent  of 
three  steps  we  reach  a platform  seven  or  eight  feet 
wide,  on  the  north  side  of  which  is  the  reliquary  cup- 
board mentioned  by  Erasmus.  On  this  platform  it  is 
probable  that  the  “ grete  paschall  maste  ” for  the 
enormous  candle  which  was  kept  burning  from  Easter 
to  Ascensiontide  was  placed.  Beyond  this  platform 
six  more  steps  lead  up  to  the  sacrarium , lying  between 
the  tombs  of  Archbishops  Bourchier  (north)  and 
Sudbury  (south).  Midway  between  the  ninth  piers 
is  the  high  altar  with  the  altars  and  shrines  of  St. 
Dunstan  and  St.  Alphege,  placed  respectively  north 
and  south  of  it,  and  probably  a little  to  the  west.3 
Whether  there  was  any  wall  or  continuous  screen- 
work  behind  the  high  altar  is  uncertain.  In  Conrad’s 
choir  the  high  altar  was  isolated,  and  it  is  not  unlikely 
That  this  arrangement  was  perpetuated  in  the  recon- 
struction after  the  great  fire,  since  there  would  have 
been  a natural  desire  not  to  obstruct  completely  the 
view  of  the  patriarchal  chair,  which  stood  at  the  top 
of  the  steps  behind  the  altar.  The  splendid  tabula  or 

3 See  Gostling,  ed.  1825,  p.  307. 

2 One  of  the  hooks  for  the  pulleys  still  remains  in  the  pier  next  to 
Archbishop  Kemp’s  tomb. 

3 The  position  of  the  high  altar  is  fixed  by  the  grant  of  a place  of 
sepulture  to  Archbishop  Bourchier  “ on  the  north  side  of  the  choir 
between  the  two  columns  next  to  the  altar  of  St.  Alphege,”  on  condition 
that  his  monument  should  not  screen  the  light  of  the  north  window  from 
the  high  altar. 


281 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

altar-piece  of  silver-gilt,  with  its  golden  image  of  the 
Holy  Trinity  in  the  midst,  flanked  by  silver  figures  of 
apostles  and  surmounted  bp  the  magnificent  pyx 
which  has  been  described  in  a former  chapter,  may 
have  been  of  the  nature  of  a reredos,  but  need  not 
have  extended  much  beyond  the  width  of  the  altar. 

On  the  festivals  of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury,  all 
three  altars  were  decked  with  “ the  frontals  of  crimson 
velvet  all  richly  embroidered  with  the  story  of  Thomas 
Becket  in  Venice  gold,”  described  in  the  inventory  of 
IS4°. 

On  the  north  side  of  the  high  altar  we  should 
see  probably  the  brazen  eagle  desk  given  by  Prior 
Goldston  II  for  the  use  of  the  gospeller  at  high 
mass  ; and  in  front  of  it,  suspended  by  chains  from 
the  vault,  three  basins  of  silver  plate,  the  gift  of 
Archbishop  Arundel,  and  which  doubtless  served  as 
sanctuary  lamps ; while  a conspicuous  object  behind 
the  altar  would  be  the  silver-plated  rood  fixed  to  a 
beam  upon  which  also  various  reliquary  chests  were 
placed,  notably  the  shrine  of  St.  Blaise,  which  con- 
tained the  earliest  relic  acquired  by  the  church. 

Eastward  of  the  beam  which  supported  the  rood  a 
further  flight  of  nine  steps  leads  up  to  the  patriarchal 
chair  of  Petworth  marble,  made  probably  in  1220,  and 
in  which  the  successors  of  St.  Augustine  have  been 
placed  at  their  enthronisation  ever  since.  -Behind  the 
archbishop’s  seat  are  iron  gates  enclosing  the  chapel  of 
St.  Thomas,  beyond  which  we  will  not  penetrate,  as 
the  treasures  of  the  saint’s  shrine  have  already  been 
sufficiently  described  in  another  place. 

Something,  however,  must  be  said  about  the  side 
altars  and  the  various  relics  deposited  at  or  near  them. 
Thus,  returning  to  the  south-east  transept,  we  notice 
upon  a beam  placed  over  the  altar  of  St.  John  the 
Evangelist  coffers  containing  the  remains  of  Arch- 
bishops Wulfhelm,  ^Ethelgar,  Siric,  and  iElfric  ; while 
at  the  altar  of  St.  Gregory  further  south  are  those  of 
282 


EVE  OF  THE  REFORMATION 

Archbishops  Bregwyn  and  ^Ethelm.  Here  too  is  an 
image  of  the  Blessed  Virgin ; before  which  a lamp  is 
perpetually  burning.  In  the  corresponding  transept 
on  the  north  side  of  the  choir  the  relics  of  Archbishops 
Cuthbert  and  Hhdielheard  are  preserved  at  the  altar 
of  St.  Stephen,  and  those  of  Archbishops  Wulfred, 
Living,  and  Lanfranc  and  of  Queen  Ediva  at  the 
adjoining  altar  of  St.  Martin.  Between  these  altars 
we  notice  another  image  of  St.  Mary  the  Virgin,1  and 
close  by,  perhaps  painted  on  the  shaft  or  pillar  which 
supported  it,  a representation  of  the  height  of  our 
Lady,  called  in  the  monastic  accounts  Mensura  beate 
Marie  Virginis . The  earliest  reference  to  this  curious 
object  occurs  in  the  will  of  one  Edmund  Staplegate, 
a citizen  of  Canterbury,  who  among  other  bequests 
left  “ a taper  of  28  lb.  weight  to  burn  before  the 
Measure  of  the  blessed  Mary  in  the  Church  of  Christ 
in  Canterbury.”  Its  position  in  the  church  seems  to 
be  determined  by  the  fact  that  in  1392  the  sacrist  paid 
79s.  4d.  for  “ the  painting  of  the  measure  of  the 
blessed  Virgin  Mary,  and  the  lower  table  at  the 
altar  of  St.  Stephen,  and  the  two  little  upper  tables 
at  the  altar  of  St.  Martin.”  “ Measures  ” of  the  height 
of  our  Lord  formerly  existed  in  the  church  of  St.  Denis 
in  France  and  in  the  church  of  St.  John  Lateran  at 
Rome,  but  no  other  instance  of  a “ measure  ” of  the 
blessed  Virgin  Mary  has  been  noted.2  Whatever  may 
have  been  the  precise  character  of  the  Christ  Church 
“measure,”  it  was  destroyed  soon  after  the  suppression 
of  the  priory,  for  in  the  year  1541-42  the  cathedral 
carpenter  was  paid  iod.  “ for  whyttyng  the  place  in 
the  chirche  where  the  mete  of  our  Lady  was.” 

We  cannot  spare  space  to  describe  in  detail  the 
extraordinary  collection  of  relics  possessed  by  the 
church  in  the  Middle  Ages.  A list  of  them  compiled 
in  1315-16,  when  Henry  of  Eastry  was  Prior,  has  been 

1 Stone’s  “ Chronicle,”  p.  102. 

2 See  “ Inventories  of  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,”  op.  cit.  p.  III. 

283 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

printed  by  Dr.  Wickham  Legg  and  Mr.  St.  John  Hope 
in  their  “ Inventories  of  Christ  Church,”  and  we  must 
be  content  with  the  summary  which  Mr.  Hope  gives 
of  the  marvellous  collection,  which  he  divides  into  the 
following  five  classes  : 

(1)  The  greater  relics  of  saints  and  archbishops 
canonised  at  Rome,  or  in  popular  estimation,  which 
were  placed  in  standing  shrines  or  tombs. 

(2)  The  lesser  relics  of  saints  and  archbishops,  con- 
tained in  portable  or  movable  shrines. 

(3)  The  relics  of  former  archbishops  and  pious  lay 
folk  buried  or  placed  near  altars. 

(4)  Miscellaneous  objects  enclosed  in  reliquaries. 

(5)  The  tombs  of  certain  archbishops  who  were  the 
objects  of  popular  veneration  and  pilgrimage. 

Of  the  greater  relics  placed  in  standing  shrines  or 
tombs,  that  of  St.  Thomas,  of  course,  heads  the  list, 
and  is  followed  by  those  of  St.  Alphege  and  St.  Dunstan, 
each  in  his  shrine,  the  former  on  the  north  and  the 
latter  on  the  south  side  of  the  high  altar.  The  body 
of  St.  Odo  lay  in  a shrine  on  the  south  side  of  the 
round  chapel  at  the  extreme  eastern  end  of  the 
church,  where  the  crown  of  St.  Thomas  was  kept,  and 
that  of  St.  Wilfrid  was  opposite  to  it  on  the  north 
side. 

St.  Anselm’s  body  is  described  in  the  list  as  “ in 
the  shrine  of  St.  Peter  ” (the  altar  was  dedicated  to 
SS.  Peter  and  Paul)  ; and  the  Archbishop’s  feretrum 
was  probably  a raised  tomb  beside  it  or  in  front  of  it, 
but  no  traces  of  it  are  left.  The  remaining  six  bodies 
were  lesser  relics,  consisting  of  mere  boxes  of  bones 
deposited  at  convenient  places. 

In  the  crypt  Gervase  records  the  position  of  nine 
altars,  viz., 

(1)  The  altar  of  St.  Mary  the  Virgin,  beneath  the 
high  altar. 

(2)  The  altar  of  St.  Nicholas,  in  the  south  apse  of 
the  north-east  transept. 

284 


EVE  OF  THE  REFORMATION 

(3)  The  altar  of  St.  Mary  Magdalene,  in  the  north 
apse  of  the  north-east  transept. 

(4)  The  altar  of  the  Holy  Innocents,  beneath  St. 
Andrew’s  Tower. 

(5)  The  altar  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  beneath  the 
chapel  of  St.  Thomas,  on  the  north  side. 

(6)  The  altar  of  St.  Augustine,  beneath  the  chapel 
of  St.  Thomas,  on  the  south  side. 

(7)  The  altar  of  St.  Audoen,  in  the  south  apse  of 
the  south-east  transept. 

(8)  The  altar  of  St.  Paulinus,  in  the  north  apse  of 
the  south-east  transept. 

(9)  The  altar  of  St.  Katherine,  in  the  centre  of  the 
south-east  transept. 

The  three  last-named  saints  must,  however,  have 
found  other  depositories  when  the  crypt  beneath  the 
south-east  transept  was  converted  into  a chantry  chapel 
by  the  Black  Prince.  St.  Audoen,  we  know,  was 
transferred  to  a new  shrine  in  the  great  relic  cupboard 
under  the  steps  behind  the  high  altar ; and  St. 
Katherine  was  made  to  share  the  altar  of  St.  Mary 
Magdalene  in  the  north  transept.  What  became  of 
St.  Paulinus  is  not  recorded.  In  addition  to  the  altars 
mentioned  by  Gervase,  the  monastic  accounts  show 
that  in  the  fifteenth  century  the  crypt  also  contained 
altars  dedicated  to  St.  Clement,  St.  Edmund 
pf  Pontigny,  St.  Thomas  the  Apostle,  and  St. 
Bartholomew.  Of  the  last-named  saint  the  church 
possessed  a notable  relic — namely,  his  arm,  given  by 
King  Canute ; and  somewhere  in  the  crypt  there 
was  a chapel  of  St.  Bartholomew,  but  its  position  is 
unknown. 

The  above  brief  description  of  the  mother-church 
on  the  eve  of  the  great  change  which  was  to  strip 
her  of  her  treasures  and  reduce  to  dust  the  chiefest 
of  them  all  may  suffice  to  recall  some  of  her 
glories,  though  it  by  no  means  exhausts  them.  Of 
Becket  Battely  writes  that  when  by  command  of 

285 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Henry  VIII  his  body  was  burnt  to  ashes,  “ his  heart 
was  found  among  those  ashes  unconsumed  and  even 
entire.  This,”  he  adds,  “ was  more  of  a miracle  than 
anything  that  was  pretended  to  be  done  by  St.  Thomas 
the  Martyr.” 

It  is  an  exceedingly  improbable  story,  but  perhaps 
we  may  accept  it  as  a symbol  that  the  truly  imperish- 
able memorials  of  a church  or  a cause  are  to  be  found 
in  the  hearts  and  lives,  the  courage  and  devotion  of  the 
men  who,  with  whatever  faults  and  frailties,  served  and 
loved  it. 

C.  E.  W. 


286 


CHAPTER  XIII 


I 

I 


FROM  THE  NEW  FOUNDATION  TO  THE 
PRIMACY  OF  LAUD 

1540-1633 

The  Royal  Charter  incorporating  the  new  capitular 
body  was  sealed  on  April  8,  1541,  just  over  a year 
after  the  dissolution  of  the  convent.1  It  recites 
(1)  the  surrender  to  the  King  of  the  monastery  and 
all  its  possessions  ; (2)  the  King’s  desire  that  the  true 
worship  of  God  be  not  abolished  therein,  but  restored 
and  reformed,  and  the  establishment  to  that  end  of  a 
collegiate  church  consisting  of  a dean  and  twelve 
canons  ; (3)  the  confirmation  of  the  cathedral  and 
metropolitical  church  and  archiepiscopal  see  with  all 
its  honours  and  distinctions  ( honoribus  et  insigniis)  to 
Cranmer  and  his  successors  ; (4)  the  perpetual  gift 
to  them  of  the  archiepiscopal  palace  ; (5)  the  grant  to 
the  new  cathedral  body  of  all  the  precinct,  site,  and 
buildings  of  the  late  monastery,  with  all  the  ancient 
privileges,  liberties,  and  free  customs,  saving  the 
palace  reserved  for  the  Archbishop  and  the  cellarer’s 
hall  and  lodging  retained  for  the  King. 

The  full  constitution  of  the  cathedral  body  as  set 
forth  in  the  statutes  issued  at  about  the  same  time 
was  as  follows  : a dean,  twelve  prebendaries,  six 

preachers,  twelve  minor  canons,  one  deacon,  one  sub- 

1 This  document  and  its  fellow  containing  the  statutes  disappeared 
probably  during  the  Parliamentary  wars,  since  after  the  Restoration 
the  Chapter  informed  Archbishop  Juxon  that  they  had  been  “ imbezled 
away.”  The  existing  copies  are  undated,  and  not  earlier  than  the 
middle  of  the  seventeenth  century. 


287 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

deacon,  twelve  lay  clerks,  one  master  of  the  choristers, 
ten  choristers,  two  teachers  of  the  grammar  school, 
fifty  scholars,  twelve  bedesmen,  two  sub-sacristans, 
two  vergers,  two  gate-porters  (who  were  also  to  act 
as  barbers),  one  manciple,  one  butler,  one  under- 
butler, one  cook,  one  under-cook,  four  bellringers — 
in  all  134  persons. 

Similar — indeed,  practically  identical-— constitutions 
were  provided  for  all  the  cathedral  churches  of  the 
new  foundation,  the  only  peculiarity  of  that  of 
the  metropolitical  church  being  the  provision  for  the 
six  preachers,  which  was  not  made  elsewhere.  At 
Canterbury  the  preachers,  in  addition  to  preaching 
in  the  cathedral  on  saints’  days,  were  to  deliver  at 
least  twenty  sermons  in  the  neighbourhood,  especially 
in  the  churches  of  those  parishes  where  the  dean  and 
chapter  possessed  landed  estates.  Houses  were  allotted 
to  them  in  the  precincts,  and  they  were  provided  with 
horses  in  order  to  enable  them  to  fulfil  their  duties  in 
the  country  parishes. 

The  dean  and  prebendaries  were  the  governing 
body,  and  their  names,  which  were  written  in  the 
charter,  indicate  the  King’s  intention  to  hold  the 
balance  equally  between  the  old  and  the  new  learning.1 
Cranmer  did  not  wholly  approve  the  scheme.  “ The 
sect  of  prebendaries,”  he  wrote  to  Cromwell  in  a 
curious  letter  quoted  by  Dr.  Mason  in  his  “ Thomas 
Cranmer,”  “ spend  their  time  in  much  idleness  and 
their  substance  in  superfluous  belly  cheer.”  Instead 
of  twelve  prebendaries  at  .£40  a year  each,  he  advised 

3 “ The  names  of  the  first  prebendaries  were  : 1st  stall,  Richard 
\ Thornden , alias  Lested,  S.T.P.  ; 2,  Arthur  Sentleger ; 3,  Richard 
Champion,  S.T.P. ; 4,  Richard  Parkhurst ; 5,  Nicholas  Ridley-,  S.T.P.  ; 
6,  John  Mennys  ; 7,  Hugh  Glasyer  ; 8,  William  Hadleigh , alias  Hunt ; 
9,  William  Sandwich , alias  Gardiner ; 10,  John  W arh am,  alias  Mills ; 
11,  John  Chillenden , alias  Danyel ; 12,  John  Baptista  de  Casia,  D.C.L. 
The  names  of  those  printed  in  italics  are  those  of  former  monks  of  the 
priory.”  “ History  of  the  King’s  School,  Canterbury,”  Woodruff  and 
Cape,  p.  47. 

288 


T 


_ 


THE  NEW  FOUNDATION 

u twenty  divines  at  £10  apiece,  like  as  it  is  appointed 
to  be  at  Oxford  and  Cambridge  ; and  forty  students 
in  the  tongues  and  sciences  and  French  to  have  ten 
marks  apiece.”  Cranmer’s  advice  availed  nothing  at 
the  time,  though  it  might  perhaps  have  made  Canter- 
bury a great  seat  of  learning  ; but  in  the  nineteenth 
century  it  was  partially,  if  unconsciously,  followed  when 
the  number  of  canons  was  cut  down  from  twelve  to 
six  and  a more  liberal  provision  was  made  for  the 
King’s  School.  Another  episode  in  connection  with 
the  new  foundation  is  greatly  to  Cranmer’s  honour. 
When  the  Commissioners  were  electing  the  first  fifty 
King’s  scholars  there  was  a disposition  to  admit  only 
those  of  gentle  birth,  to  keep  the  children  of  poor 
folk  “ low  in  the  forehead  that  they  might  do  low 
work.”  The  Archbishop  would  have  none  of  it. 
“ Poor  men’s  children  are  many  times  endued  with 
more  singular  gifts  of  nature,  which  are  also  the  gifts 
of  God — -as  with  eloquence,  memory,  apt  pronuntia- 
tion,  sobriety,  with  such-like — and  also  more  commonly 
given  to  apply  their  study  than  is  the  gentleman’s  son 
delicately  educated.  , . . To  conclude,  if  the  gentle- 
man’s son  be  apt  to  learning,  let  him  be  admitted  ; if 
not,  let  the  poor  man’s  child,  apt,  enter  his  room.”  1 
The  history  of  the  King’s  School  has  been  fully  told 
elsewhere,2  but  a brief  summary  of  its  relation  to  the 
mew  foundation  may  not  be  out  of  place  here. 

In  monastic  times  the  archbishop’s  school  was 
probably  taught  in  a building,  long  since  destroyed, 
near  the  palace.  The  first  schoolhouse  after  the 
dissolution  was  the  building,  now  used  as  stable, 
coachhouse,  and  garage,  on  the  south  side  of  the 
precincts  and  close  to  the  east  side  of  the  mound 
where  stood  the  old  campanile.  This  building  was 

1 Strype’s  “Memorials  of  the  Archbishops”  Cranmer,  vol.  i.  p. 

127,  Oxf.  ed.  * •%  i 

2 “ Historyfof  the  King’s  School,  Canterbury,”  Woodruff  and  Cape, 
London,  1909. 


291 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

afterwards  used  as  a “ plumbery  ” and  sometimes  as  a 
bell-foundry,  the  great  clock-bell  “ Dunstan  ” in  the 
south-west  tower  or  Oxford  steeple  having  been  recast 
here  in  1762.  The  structure  was  partially  destroyed 
by  fire  during  these  rather  dangerous  operations,  but 
was  restored  on  the  old  lines,  and  retains  the  old 
stonework  of  the  western  wall  abutting  on  the  mound. 

Now,  in  the  year  1546  Henry  VIII,  by  what  he 
euphemistically  called  an  exchange,  took  back  from 
Christ  Church  eight  manors  outside  the  county  of 
Kent  together  with  the  almonry  buildings  in  the 
Mint  Yard,  giving  in  return  the  single  manor  of 
Godmersham  and  a release  from  the  obligation  laid 
upon  the  Chapter  of  providing  £ 200  a year  for  the 
maintenance  of  twenty-four  scholars  at  the  Universities 
of  Oxford  and  Cambridge.  The  Mint  Yard  therefore 
became  by  inheritance  the  property  of  Queen  Mary, 
who  granted  it  to  Cardinal  Pole.  Pole  was  a friend  to 
education,  and  bequeathed  the  site  and  buildings  to 
the  Chapter  for  the  use  of  the  school.  Accordingly  in 
the  first  year  of  Queen  Elizabeth  the  King’s  scholars 
were  removed  to  the  great  North-hall,  of  which  we 
have  already  given  a description  in  a former  chapter. 

After  a brief  interval  came,  in  1573,  another  migra- 
tion. Along  the  south  side  of  the  Mint  Yard  stood 
a range  of  buildings  consisting  of  the  old  almonry 
chapel  and  the  lodgings  of  the  seven  chaplains  who  ^ 
had  served  it.1  Here  the  King’s  School  found  a home 
till  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  witnessed 
the  beginning  of  those  extensions  and  improvements 
which  issued  in  the  present  King’s  School  quadrangle. 

The  statutes  of  Henry  VIII  illustrate  for  us  various 
features  of  interest  in  the  life  both  of  the  school  and 
the  cathedral.  Each  scholar  was  allotted  a stipend  of 
£1  8s.  4d.,  with  allowances  for  a gown  and  for  meals 
at  the  common  table,  equivalent  altogether  to  about 

1 An  interesting  print  of  these  buildings  is  in  Stockdale’s  etchings,  and 
is  reproduced  in  Woodruff  and  Cape’s  “ History  of  the  King’s  School.” 

292 


THE  NEW  FOUNDATION 

£\^  or  ten  times  that  sum  of  our  money.  The  gown 
was  no  mere  badge,  but  a substantial  article  of  dress, 
the  cloth  for  which  was  provided  yeaily  for  all  sub- 
ordinate officials  of  the  foundation,  and  still  survives 
in  the  gowns  of  the  bedesmen.  The  arrangement  for 
“ free  meals  ” presents  us  with  a curious  picture  of 
contemporary  customs.  The  long  narrow  building 
known  by  the  monks  as  the  third  dormitory,  which 
stretched  from  the  Dark  Entry  to  the  great  dormitory 
and  of  which  a fragment  remains  at  the  foot  of  the  steps 
leading  up  to  the  north  door  of  the  library,  was  fitted 
up  as  “ the  Peticanons’  ” hall,  and  served  by  a manciple, 
two  butlers,  and  two  cooks.  Three  tables  were  set 
therein  at  which,  according  to  their  “ quality,”  sat  the 
“ commoners.”  At  the  first  table  were  the  precentor, 
head  master,  and  minor  canons ; at  the  second  the 
lower  master  and  the  lay  clerks ; at  the  third  the  fifty 
King’s  scholars  and  ten  chorister  boys.  The  common 
table  was  discontinued  at  the  beginning  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  to  the  loss  of  all  its  frequenters,  and  the 
hall  was  destroyed  in  the  time  of  the  Commonwealth. 

The  enactment  that  the  masters  and  boys  should 
attend  the  choir  offices  on  Sundays,  holy  days,  and 
their  eves,  suitably  dressed  (in  habitu  compete nti  choro ), 
is  to  this  day  observed  by  the  surpliced  ranks  of  King’s 
scholars ; but  the  clause  which  made  obligatory  a 
daily  attendance  at  high  mass  must  soon  have  become 
obsolete.  Nevertheless,  the  Latin  mass  kept  its  place 
during  the  lifetime  of  Henry  VIII,  as  indeed  did  many 
other  uses  of  the  mediaeval  church.  Thus  in  the 
receiver’s  accounts  for  1541  we  read  of  the  purchase  of 
815  lb.  of  wax  for  the  Paschal  candle  which  burned 
from  Easter  to  Ascension  and  cost  about  £ 200  of  our 
money.1  The  Epistle  and  Gospel  were,  however,  to 
be  said  in  English,  and  the  royal  injunctions  of  1547 
for  the  first  time  permit  the  choristers  to  discontinue 

1 “Pro  cera  continent,  815  lb.,  56s.  per  cwt.,  £19  19s.  6d.  Pro 
composicione  eiusdem  cerae,  33s.  2^d.” 


293 


CANTERBURY*  CATHEDRAL 

the  tonsure,  “ their  heads,  nevertheless,  to  be  kept 
short.”  By  Easter  in  the  following  year  the  issue  of 
the  office  for  Holy  Communion  in  English  caused 
the  shadow  of  obsolescence  to  creep  over  Henry’s 
statutes,  and  the  daily  attendance  of  the  King’s 
scholars  at  high  mass  was  dispensed  with. 


The  Chained  Bible 


But  to  i evert  to  the  main  current  of  our  history. 
Nicholas  Wotton,  the  first  dean  of  Canterbury,  was  a 
politician  of  ability  and  a diplomatist  of  real  distinction, 
whose  various  embassies  and  errands  of  State  are  set 
forth  in  the  epitaph,  written  by  himself,  on  his  monu- 
ment in  the  Trinity  Chapel.  The  employment  of  the 
clergy  in  public  affairs  was,  of  course,  in  those  days  no 
unusual  thing,  and  a successful  embassy  was  often  the 
path  to  high  ecclesiastical  preferment ; it  was  doubt- 
less (for  the  King)  a convenient  way  of  paying  for 
their  services.  What  precisely  were  the  religious 
sympathies  of  Wotton  it  would  be  difficult  to  say,  but 
294 


THE  NEW  FOUNDATION 

they  were  evidently  qualified  by  the  tact  and  flexibility 
he  had  shown  in  worldly  matters  ; for  the  changes 
which  were  so  difficult  or  dangerous  to  others  never 
upset  his  balance  or  baffled  his  judgment.  More  and 
Fisher  and  Cromwell  might  go  to  the  block,  Cranmer 
and  Ridley  and  Latimer  to  the  stake  ; Mass  might  be 
said  in  Latin  at  the  altar,  or  the  Communion  office  in 
English  at  a table  in  the  body  of  the  church  ; Rome 
and  Geneva  might  desperately  dispute,  and  each  find 
willing  martyrs  for  her  cause  ; high  treason  or  heresy 
might  and  did  steal  upon  men  unawares,  veiled  in  an 
Oath  of  Supremacy  or  an  argument  about  Transub- 
stantiation  ; but  the  reigns  of  Henry  VIII,  Edward  VI, 
Mary,  and  Elizabeth  all  alike  found  Nicholas  Wotton  in 
possession  of  his  two  great  deaneries  of  Canterbury  and 
York  and  in  the  favour  and  employment  of  the  Crown.1 

These  easy  and  elastic  views,  however,  were  not 
shared  by  the  prebendaries  and  six-preachers,  and 
Cranmer  was  sometimes  beset  by  those  of  the  old 
learning  and  sometimes  by  those  of  the  new.  About 
1542  there  was  a formidable  and  most  discreditable 
plot  by  three  prebendaries  and  two  six-preachers  to 
indict  the  Archbishop  for  heresy  and  so  procure  his 
downfall.  Thornden,  who  occupied  the  first  stall  and 
had  received  many  favours  from  him,  seems  to  have 
been  the  ringleader  and  to  have  secured  the  complicity 
'of  Dr.  London,  the  notorious  visitor  of  the  monasteries, 
whom  Archbishop  Parker  afterwards  described  as  “ a 
stout  and  filthy  prebendary  of  Windsor,” 2 whose 
motive  can  only  have  been  enmity  to  Cranmer.  How 
the  King  set  his  foot  on  the  conspiracy  is  told  by 
Morice,  the  Archbishop’s  secretary.  “ The  King,  on 
an  evening,  rowing  on  the  Thames  in  his  barge,  came 

1 Another  member  of  the  cathedral  body  who  weathered  all  the 
storms  of  these  troublous  times  was  “ Father  Newbury,”  one  of  the 
minor  canons,  who  had  been  a monk  in  the  priory  and  who  continued 
to  hold  his  minor  canonry  until  the  year  1564. 

2 Parker  MSS.  Corpus  Christi  Coll.  Cambridge,  No.  cxxviii.  p.  203, 
as  quoted  by  Strype. 


295 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

to  Lambeth  bridge  and  there  received  my  Lord 
Cranmer  into  his  barge,  saying  unto  him  merrily, 
4 Ah,  my  chaplain  ! I have  news  for  you.’  And  so 
pulled  out  of  his  sleeve  a paper,  wherein  was  contained 
his  accusation,  subscribed  with  the  hands  of  certain 
prebendaries  and  justices  of  the  shire.  Whereunto 
my  Lord  Cranmer  made  answer  and  besought  his 
Highness  to  appoint  such  commissioners  as  would 
effectually  try  out  the  truth  of  those  articles.  4 Marry/ 
said  the  King,  4 so  will  I do,  for  I have  such  affiance  in 
your  fidelity  that  I will  commit  the  examination  hereof 
wholly  to  you  and  such  as  you  will  appoint.’  ” 1 On 
this  incident  Canon  Scott  Robertson  in  his  mono- 
graph on  Thornden  comments  as  follows  : 44  The 

wondrous  and  shameless  plausibility  of  Thornden  is 
evinced  by  the  fact  that  within  six  months  after 
this  he  obtained  from  Cranmer  the  rich  benefice  of 
Bishopsbourne.  ...  So  forgiving  and  generous  was 
the  spirit  of  Cranmer,  and  so  seductive  were  the  arts 
of  Thornden,  that  upon  the  death  of  RichardYngworth, 
bishop  of  Dover,  in  November  1544,  t^ie  Archbishop 
nominated  Thornden  (with  one  other)  to  the  Govern- 
ment as  successor  to  his  suffragan.”  We  may  add  that 
so  disloyal  and  ungrateful  was  the  suffragan  that  in 
later  years,  on  the  accession  of  Queen  Mary,  he  used 
his  office  as  vice-dean  without  Cranmer’s  knowledge 
to  revive  those  mediaeval  accompaniments  of  the  mass 
which  the  English  Prayer-book  had  banished,  thus 
forcing  the  Archbishop  by  his  disavowal  of  their 
legality  into  the  proceedings  which  led  to  his  death. 

While  the  cathedral  clergy  were  thus  taking  part  in 
the  history  of  their  time,  what  of  the  cathedral  itself 
and  its  treasures  of  mediaeval  art  ? The  process  of 
stripping  and  destruction,  though  intermittent,  was 
never  long  in  abeyance  throughout  the  reigns  of 
Henry  VIII  and  Edward  VI.  There  were  other 
shrines  to  be  demolished  besides  that  of  St.  Thomas  ; 

1 “ Narratives  of  the  Reformation,”  p.  252. 


296 


THE  NEW  FOUNDATION 

those  of  SS.  Alphege  and  Dunstan  occupied  their  place 
of  honour  in  the  choir,  and  the  bones  of  sainted  arch- 
bishops la y in  their  chantries  in  choir  and  nave. 
Monumental  effigies  of  rare  workmanship  in  stone  or 
metal  marked  the  resting-places  of  dead  benefactors, 
and  in  some  cases  still  attracted  the  occasional  pilgrim. 
All  these  images  and  relics — “ any  shrine,  covering  of 
shrine,  table,  monument  of  miracles  or  other  pilgrim- 
ages ” — were  by  royal  injunction  swept  away  “ so  as 
there  remain  no  memory  of  it.”  Then  came  the  turn 
of  the  gold  and  silver  plate  and  costly  vestments. 

On  April  io,  1540,  two  years  after  the  great  spoiling  of 
Becket’s  shrine,  when  twenty-six  cartloads  of  precious 
things  were  taken  from  the  church  and  convent, 
an  inventory  by  Cranmer  and  five  other  commissioners 
showed  that  the  church  still  possessed  an  enormous 
store  of  plate  and  vestments.  This  was  “ to  be  saufely 
kepte  and  ordered  there  untill  the  Kinge’s  highnes 
plesure  be  further  declared.”  What  this  “ plesure  ” 
was  likely  to  be  was  indicated  by  the  King’s  appropria- 
tion of  another  instalment  of  plate  within  a month 
of  the  inventory.  In  1548,  under  Edward  VI,  much 
more  was  taken,  including  the  famous  silver  table  of 
Prior  Chillenden  “ that  stood  upon  their  high  aulter.” 
Besides  all  this  authorised  plundering  there  were 
the  depredations  of  common  thieves,  especially  during 
the  interval  between  the  suppression  of  the  priory 
and  the  incorporation  of  the  new  governing  body. 
Thus  we  read  in  the  treasurer’s  accounts  that  one  of 
the  first  acts  of  the  chapter  was  to  send  its  servants  to 
London  to  make  inquiries  concerning  “ the  chalices 
and  other  silver  vessels  which  have  been  stolen  from 
the  church,  and  to  give  warning  to  the  bedel  of  the 
gild  of  goldsmiths  of  the  said  theft.”  1 

A later  inventory,  at  the  visitation  of  Dr.  Parker  in 
1563,  and  summarised  by  Dr.  Cox,1  “ shows  that  only 
five  out  of  the  eight  chalices  left  in  1540  remained. 

] Treasurer’s  Accounts,  1541-42. 


297 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Censers  of  silver  and  silver-gilt  cruets  were  still 
extant.  Of  the  hundred  white  copes  of  1540,  fifteen 
were  left  ; of  the  fifty  green  copes  of  the  earlier  date, 
eight ; of  the  fifty  red,  seventeen  ; and  of  the  thirty- 
seven  blue  copes,  no  fewer  than  twenty.  Out  of  forty 
vestments  or  chasubles  inventoried  in  1540  only  eight 
survived.”  The  treasurer’s  accounts  prove  that,  apart 
from  royal  depredations  and  private  pilferings,  the 
chuich’s  stores  were  also  diminished  by  sales,  some- 
times, but  nor  always,  for  a specified  purpose.  Dean 
Wotton  died  in  1567,  and  it  was  elicited  in  an  inquiry 
shortly  afterwards  that  during  his  twenty-six  years  of 
office  nine-tenths  of  the  “ ornaments  ” of  the  church 
had  been  disposed  of  for  the  benefit  of  the  Chapter.2 
Two  months  after  the  installation  of  his  successor, 
Godwin,  further  sales  of  vestments,  plate,  and  jewels 
were  made,  owing  to  the  impoverishment  of  the 
revenue,  in  order  to  pay  the  usual  stipends  of  the  minor 
officials  of  the  cathedral.  By  an  act  of  Chapter,  1569, 
“ it  is  agreed  that  the  vestments  and  other  vestry- 
stuffs  remayning  in  the  vestry  shall  be  viewed  and 
sold,  reserving  some  of  the  copes ; and  the  money 
that  shall  arryse  of  the  same  to  be  bestowed  in  byeing 
of  necessary  armor.”  This  was  in  response  to  a call 
for  the  equipment  of  troops  (six  light  horsemen) 
against  the  rebellion  headed  by  the  Earls  of  North- 
umberland and  Westmoreland.  It  is  expressly  stated 
that  many  of  the  articles  sold  are  “ now  not  lawful  to 
be  used  in  or  about  the  service.”  To  this  category 
would  belong  the  wakering  or  sanctus  bell,  which  in 
1585  was  given,  for  more  ordinary  uses,  to  Eastbridge 
hospital. 

The  discipline  and  conduct  of  the  cathedral  clergy 
left  much  to  be  desired,  owing  partly  perhaps  to  the 
almost  complete  non-residence  of  Dean  Wotton.  It 
is  at  this  period  that  George  Boleyn  was  a prebendary. 

1 “Canterbury,”  London,  1905,  p.  102. 

2 Cowper’s  “Lives  of  the  Deans  of  Canterbury,”  p.  33. 


298 


THE  NEW  FOUNDATION 

He  is  believed  to  have  been  the  nephew  of  Queen 
Anne  Boleyn,  and  cousin  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  was 
installed  in  1566.  He  assaulted  a brother  prebendary, 
beat  a lawyer  in  the  Chapter-house,  struck  a six- 
preacher  with  his  dagger,  and  threatened  to  pin  the 
Dean  to  the  wall  with  the  same  weapon.  He  was 
rewarded  for  this  spirited  conduct  (or  for  the  accident 
of  his  birth)  with  the  deanery  of  Lichfield,  which  he 
held  together  with  his  canonry  till  his  death  in  1604. 

The  record  of  the  fabric  during  these  times  is 
scarcely  more  cheerful  reading  than  that  of  the 
“ ornaments  ” and  clergy.  So  much  stained  glass  was 
broken  in  the  attempt  to  suppress  the  memory  of 
Becket  that  the  survival  of  the  “ miracle  ” windows  in 
the  Trinity  Chapel  is  surprising.  There  is  an  entry 
in  the  receiver’s  accounts  for  the  year  1541  which 
runs  as  follows  : “ Pro  reparacionibus  ffenestrarum 

ecclie  et  transmutacione  historie  Th.  Bekett  ciii3  nd.” 
On  this  the  following  in  English  may  serve  as  an 
illuminating  comment  : “ Oct.  1544.  For  mending 
the  windowes  and  casements  where  the  shryne  was, 
and  in  our  Lady  chapell  iiii3.” 

In  1544  the  palace  of  the  Archbishop  was  destroyed 
by  fire  during  preparations  for  the  entertainment  of 
the  Viceroy  of  Sicily.  Several  persons  perished,  in- 
cluding Cranmer’s  brother-in-law,  and  the  place  lay 
in  ruins  till  rebuilt  by  Archbishop  Parker  in  1565. 
In  1569  part  of  the  deanery  was  burnt,  and  restored 
with  stone  taken  from  the  monastic  buildings — one  of 
the  many  instances  in  which  the  old  monasteries  both 
of  Christ  Church  and  of  St.  Augustine’s  were  used  as 
quarries.  It  will  interest  many  who  in  our  own  day 
share  the  hospitality  of  the  deanery  to  read  an  Act  of 
Chapter  dated  1585  : “ That  the  Dean’s  great  chamber 
be  wainscoted  at  the  church’s  charge,  because  it  is  the 
only  place  within  this  church  [precincts]  fit  for  the 
entertainment  of  any  noble  personage  that  shall  resort 
thither  for  any  purpose.” 

299 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

The  chief  building  operation  of  the  new  foundation 
(1541-47)  compares  miserably  enough  with  the  great 
work  of  pre-Reformation  days.  It  was  the  fashion- 
ing out  of  the  conventual  buildings  of  houses  for  the 
Dean,  the  twelve  prebendaries,  and  the  minor  canons, 
and  was  at  least  as  much  a work  of  destruction  as  of 
construction.  For  a full  account  of  this  the  reader 
must  consult  the  minute  and  lengthy  Distribution 
Document  printed  by  Willis  in  Archceologia  Cantiana , 
vol.  vii.  p.  192.  But  Somner’s  notes  give  informa- 
tion, which  must  not  here  be  omitted,  as  to  the  fate 
of  some  of  the  monastic  buildings.  By  Act  of  Chapter 
(1547)  much  of  the  great  dormitory  was  demolished 
to  provide  materials  for  housing  the  minor  canons, 
the  lead  being  distributed  among  the  dean  and  pre- 
bendaries ; the  Frater  and  convent  kitchen  with 
“ other  superfluous  houses  there  ” were  pulled  down  to 
erect  dwellings  for  two  prebendaries,  one  of  whom 
was  to  “ convey  and  carry  away  the  material  of  the 
same  Frater  ” ; the  long  hall  of  the  infirmary  was 
ordered  in  1545  “ to  be  pulled  down  with  speed,”  but 
the  southern  arcade  was  spared  to  form  part  of  a 
minor  canon’s  house,  and  the  chapel  was  incorporated 
with  the  house  allotted  to  Dr.  Thornden  (of  acquisitive 
memory),  who  also  obtained  “ ye  vault  called  Bishop 
Beckett’s  tombe  under  our  Ladies  chapell  ” to  serve 
as  a wood  cellar.  This  remarkable  use  of  a portion 
of  the  cathedral  crypt  lasted  till  nearly  the  middle  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  In  1866  the  houses  were 
cleared  away  and  the  arcade  of  the  infirmary  chapel 
and  hall  were  restored  to  view. 

Stone  relates  that  in  the  year  1468  Archbishop 
Bourchier,  having  said  mass  in  the  choir,  adjourned 
to  the  chapter-house  for  the  sermon,  which  was 
preached  by  William  Sellinge,  afterwards  Prior,  on 
Judges  i.1  This  occasional  pre-Reformation  custom 
became  a settled  use  so  early  in  the  new  order 
1 Stone’s  “Chronicle,”  ed.  M.  R.  James,  ut  supra , p.  105. 

3OO 


The  Deanery 


■ 


THE  NEW  FOUNDATION 

of  things  that  by  1544  the  chapter-house  had  been 
fitted  up  with  a pulpit,  pews,  and  galleries.  There 
was  a gallery  at  the  west  end  and  another  along  the 
north  side  ; at  the  eastern  end  of  the  latter  (i.e,  in 
the  north-eastern  corner  of  the  building)  was  an 
enclosure,  with  latticed  casements  and  bearing  the 
royal  arms,  for  the  accommodation  of  royalty.  For 
many  years  the  congregation  adjourned  after  prayers 
in  the  choir  to  hear  the  preacher  in  the  “ Sermon- 
house  ” ; but  the  confusion  and  inconvenience  of 
this  migration  caused  Archbishop  Laud  to  forbid  the 
practice,  with  what  result  we  shall  see  later.  A 
covered  way  was  built  between  a door  in  the  south 
wall  of  the  Sermon-house  and  another  in  the  north 
wall  of  the  Lady  Chapel  (deans’  Chapel),  which  was 
used  as  a vestry  to  which  the  preacher  usually  retired 
for  thought  twenty  minutes  before  his  discourse. 
Communication  was  also  established  between  the 
royal  closet  and  a doorway  still  existing  (but  now 
opening  on  a cupboard)  in  the  passage  from  the  library 
to  the  south-east  transept. 

It  has  already  been  told  how,  on  the  accession  of 
Queen  Mary,  the  wily  Thornden,  as  vice-Dean,  secured 
his  own  safety  and  hastened  the  downfall  of  his  patron 
and  benefactor  by  promptly  celebrating  mass  with  the 
old  rites  in  the  cathedral.  The  tragedy  of  Cranmer’s 
last  days  does  not  belong  to  these  pages,  but  the  coming 
of  Cardinal  Pole,  the  visits  of  Philip  and  of  Mary,  and 
the  stir  of  religious  reaction  are  told  so  tersely  and 
effectively  in  the  treasurer’s  accounts  that  we  cannot 
do  better  than  quote  a few  items,  and  leave  the  rest 
to  the  reader’s  imagination.  The  depleted  ecclesiastical 
stores  were  refurnished  with  vestments  (chasubles), 
tunicles,  albes,  altar-cloths,  not  less  than  three  “ paires 
of  organs,”  chalices,  patens,  a “ paxe  and  a sacaryng 
bell,”  “ crewets,”  a holy-water  “ stopp  ” and  a sprinkler 
for  the  same,  “ antyphonars,”  “ messalls  ” (missals), 
“ imnalls  ” (hymnals),  processionals,  pontificals,  “ cor- 

301 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

poras  cloths,”  “ saltars  ” (psalters),  u legends,” 
“ sonnges,”  the  story  of  St.  Thomas  with  music 
newly  “ prycked,”  an  “ antem  of  our  Ladye,”  and 
many  another  accessory  of  the  old  forms  of  service. 
There  was  much  mending  of  books  and  of  the  “ great 
organ  ” with  sheepskin  and  calfskin  galore.  The 
following  items  should  be  quoted  entire  : 

Paid  to  Thomas  Byskop  for  making  of  the  rood,  with  Mary  and  John 
and  the  crosse,  vil  xiiis  iiijd. 

To  a turnar  for  turning  of  ye  ring  for  ye  iiij  Evangelists  for  ye  crosse. 

To  Wm.  Johnson  for  painting  and  gilding  of  ye  Roode,  Mary  and 
John,  and  all  ye  furniture,  viil  xiiis  iiijd. 

To  Thos.  Byskop  for  an  image  of  our  Ladye  for  our  Ladye  chappell,  xvs. 

To  certaine  laborers  carying  of  the  crosse  uppe  to  ye  crowne  of  ye 
church  to  be  gilded  and  painted,  xiid. 

To  xii  laborers  ij  days  abowt  ye  reringe  of  ye  crosse  w*  all  ye  furni- 
ture and  pulling  at  the  wrensh  at  vid  ye  pece  a day,  xiis. 

To  a laborer  ii  daies  making  cleane  of  the  vauts  of  the  north  syde  of 
the  chapter  house  and  carying  away  of  the  rubbish  against  my  lord 
Cardinally  cumyng,  xiid. 

To  another  laborer  ij  days  more  carying  of  rubbish  from  ye  skule 
house  dore,  Mr.  Deane’s  dore  and  Mr.  Sellenger’s  against  the  King’s 
Majies  cumyng,  xiid. 

To  ij  laborers  for  making  cleane  of  the  Lybrary  and  the  tommes  of 
the  king  and  black  prince  against  the  Quene’s  his  Majies  cumyng,  xvid. 

Presents  and  expences  extraordinary — Imprimis  to  the  Quene’s  his 
Majy  at  her  cumyng  to  Canty  for  a present,  xh. 

For  a purse  of  crymson  velvett  wl  gold  and  lase  and  red  silk  and 
makyng  of  the  same,  xiiis  vid. 

For  iiij  boxes  of  suckett  and  marmelad  and  iiij  gallons  of  wine  given 
to  the  Dewk  of  Northfowk,  the  Erie  of  Arundel,  the  Erie  of  Westmore- 
land and  dyvers  other  lords,  the  iiijth  day  of  March,  cumyng  wh  the 
King’s  Majy,  xvis  viid. 

Given  to  the  duches  of  Lorren  and  the  duches  of  Parmye  per  capit 
the  xxiii  March,  155 7,  xxiiijs. 

For  painting  of  the  crusyfix  and  xii  apostles  in  the  Cardinally  chappell, 
iiis  iiijd. 

The  foregoing  list  adumbrates  briefly  but  perhaps 
sufficiently  the  advent  of  the  new  Primate,  the  visits 
of  royalty  and  its  expectation  of  “ rewards,”  the 
appreciation  by  the  nobility  of  “ suckett  and  marmelad,” 
and  the  expense  of  receiving  persons  of  distinction. 
The  last  item  reminds  us  that  Cardinal  Pole  fittedmp 
302 


THE  NEW  FOUNDATION 

and  adorned  the  almonry  chapel  (known  for  some  years 
afterwards  as  the  Cardinal’s  Chapel)  for  his  private 
use.  The  palace  and  its  chapel  were,  it  will  be 
remembered,  in  ruins.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that 
Pole  made  many  gifts  to  his  church  ; among  them  a 
jewelled  “ mytre  of  silver  and  gylte,”  and  “a  Cam- 
bricke  cloth  edged  with  golde  to  take  the  Mytre  off 
tharchbusshopp’s  heade.”  A few  dark  hints  occur 
in  the  accounts  and  registers  of  the  intolerance  which 
disgraced  Mary’s  reign,  such  as  the  expense  of  con- 
veying hither  or  thither  convicti — i.e.  condemned 
heretics.  Between  1553  and  1558  ten  men  and  three 
women  were  expelled  from  St.  Nicholas’s  Hospital, 
Harbledown,  and  ten  women  from  St.  John’s,  North- 
gate,  apparently  on  account  of  their  Protestantism. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Queen  wrote  to  the  Dean  and 
Chapter  in  1555  to  secure  the  due  payment  of  the 
pensions  of  “ the  late  religious  persons,  men  and  women 
and  chantry  priests.”  Somner  tells  us  that  in  1553 
six  of  the  prebendaries  were  deprived  on  the  charge  of 
being  married  priests.  Three  only  consented  to  appear 
before  the  Commission,  one  being  Cranmer’s  brother, 
the  Archdeacon  of  Canterbury.  These  manfully  main- 
tained that  their  marriages  were  lawful,  and  that 
they  would  not  put  away  their  wives.  Dean  Wotton, 
fortunately  for  himself,  had  never  taken  to  himself  a 
spouse. 

The  deaths  of  Queen  Mary  and  Cardinal  Pole 
within  a few  hours  of  each  other  in  the  autumn  of 
1558  were  a dramatic  ending  to  the  Roman  reaction. 
Pole  was  buried  in  his  cathedral  church  under  a plain 
tomb  placed  against  the  north  wall  of  the  corona.  On 
the  wall  above  was  painted  his  armorial  coat  of  many 
quarterings,  and  a representation  of  St.  Christopher. 
Both  have  long  since  disappeared,  but  a few  years 
since  the  late  Cardinal  Vaughan  received  permission 
from  the  Dean  and  Chapter  to  set  up  over  the  tomb  a 
panel  emblazoned  with  the  Pole  arms. 


3°3 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

With  the  accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth  to  the  throne 
and  of  Matthew  Parker  to  the  primacy  there  was  an 
instant  reversion  to  the  principles  of  the  Reformation. 
Five  of  the  prebendaries  refused  to  take  the  Oath  of 
Supremacy,  even  in  the  modified  form  in  which  it  was 
now  tendered,  and  were  deprived  of  their  stalls  ; and 
the  numerous  adjuncts  of  divine  worship  acquired  at 
so  much  cost  during  the  Marian  reaction  were  speedily 
cleared  away.  The  see  of  Canterbury  had  become  so 
much  impoverished  since  the  days  of  Warham  that 
Parker  was  compelled  to  apply  to  the  Queen  for  a loan 
in  order  to  enable  him  to  take  possession.  Elizabeth, 
who  was  not  renowned  for  liberality,  seems  on  this 
occasion  to  have  acted  generously,  for  she  granted  the 
Archbishop  a sum  equal  to  ^12,000  of  our  money. 
During  the  rebuilding  of  his  ruined  palace  the  Primate 
lived  in  retirement  in  his  modest  manor-house  at 
Bekesbourne  ; but  though  of  quiet  and  simple  habits, 
Parker  did  not  shrink  from  the  state  befitting  his 
position  when  occasion  required.  Thus,  in  1563, 
when  he  came  to  Canterbury  for  his  metropolitical 
visitation,  he  came  with  a retinue  of  forty  horsemen. 
One  of  the  answers  made  by  the  Dean  and  Chapter  to 
Parker’s  articles  of  inquiry  at  this  visitation  is  worth 
quoting  for  the  light  it  throws  upon  the  usages  of  the 
Church  at  a time  when  the  “ Elizabethan  settlement  ” 
was  still  in  the  making.  The  answer  relates  to  the 
way  in  which  divine  service  was  celebrated  in  the 
cathedral,  and  is  as  follows  : 

The  Common  Prayer  daily  throughout  the  year,  though  there  be  no 
Communion,  is  sung  at  the  Communion  Table  standing  north  and  south, 
where  the  high  Altar  did  stand ; the  minister  when  there  is  no  Com- 
munion useth  a surplice  only,  standing  on  the  east  side  of  the  Table 
with  his  face  to  the  people.  The  Holy  Communion  is  ministered 
ordinarily  the  first  Sunday  of  every  month  throughout  the  year ; at 
what  time  the  Table  is  set  east  and  west.  The  priest  which  ministereth, 
the  Pystoler,  and  Gospeler  at  that  time  wear  copes.” *  1 

1 Corpus  Christi  Coll.  Cambs.  MS.  cxxii.,  quoted  in  Strype’s  “ Parker,” 

i.  183. 

304 


THE  NEW  FOUNDATION 

Two  years  later,  when  the  repairs  to  the  palace  were 
completed  and  the  revenues  of  the  see  had  somewhat 
righted  themselves,  Archbishop  Parker  gave  a series 
of  splendid  entertainments  to  the  whole  countryside. 
The  only  event  of  this  kind  which  need  claim  our 
attention  is  the  reception  of  the  Queen  in  1573,  when 
she  stayed  for  a fortnight  at  St.  Augustine’s  Abbey, 
which  Henry  VIII  had  appropriated  as  a royal  resi- 
dence. On  September  3 she  rode  on  horseback  to 
the  west  door  of  the  cathedral,  was  received  by  the 
Archbishop,  two  bishops,  the  Chapter  and  choir,  all 
kneeling,  was  escorted  under  a canopy  to  a chair  in 
the  presbytery  (curiously  called  “ the  traverse  ”),  and 
attended  divine  service,  afterwards  returning  on  foot 
to  St.  Augustine’s  through  the  cheering  crowds.  On 
September  7 — her  fortieth  birthday — at  a banquet  in 
her  honour  in  the  great  hall  of  the  Archbishop’s  palace, 
Elizabeth  sat  under  a canopy  of  doth  of  gold  in  an 
ancient  marble  chair  (in  veteri  quadam  marmorea 
cathedra) — which  looks  as  though  the  ancient  chair 
of  St.  Augustine  had  been  brought  from  the  church. 
In  the  profuse  distribution  of  customary  “ gifts  and 
rewards  ” she  graciously  received  from  her  host  a 
magnificent  salt-cellar  filled  with  gold  pieces  and  bear- 
ing her  portrait  and  the  royal  arms  cut  in  agate. 
Unfortunately  for  the  Primate,  the  Queen  greatly 
admired  his  favourite  horse,  which  he  accordingly 
transferred  to  the  royal  stables.  It  is  said  that  these 
entertainments  and  “ lewards  ” cost  the  Archbishop 
.£2000,  or  at  the  present  value  of  money  nearly  .£20,000. 

The  Chapter  Act  Books  from  the  time  of  the  new 
foundation  to  the  reign  of  Charles  I are  either 
altogether  missing  or  so  badly  damaged  by  fire  that 
only  an  imperfect  record  of  this  period  is  available. 
Fragmentary  notices,  however,  of  the  sale  of  plate  and 
“ vestry  stuff  ” suggest  the  change  from  Pole  to  Parker 
in  the  law  and  use  of  the  Church ; while  the  pur- 
chase of  armour  and  the  use  of  the  chamber  above 

3°5 


u 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

St.  Michael’s  Chapel  as  an  armoury  remind  us  of  an 
age  of  threatened  rebellion  and  invasions. 

From  the  scanty  information  which  can  be  gleaned 
from  the  Act  Books  concerning  the  conduct  of  divine 
wordiip  during  this  period  we  gather  that  the  one 
statutable  sermon  on  Sunday,  and  the  reading*  in 
divinity  on  Wednesday  and  Friday,  were  often  lacking. 
In  1620  the  dean,  canons,  and  preachers  by  a self- 
denying  ordinance  undertook  to  keep  up  a Sunday 
afternoon  sermon  among  themselves,  “ except  when 
some  able  preacher  could  be  found  to  take  their 
place.”  But  this  was  apparently  found  too  heavy  a 
burden,  for  six  years  iater  it  was  arranged  that  Mr. 
Robert  Procter,  a Fellow  of  Peterhouse,  Cambridge, 
should  preach  a “ catecheticall  ” sermon  on  Sunday 
afternoons,  and  that  the  dean  should  give  the  said 
preacher  hospitality,  each  prebendary  forty  shillings, 
and  each  preacher  ten  shillings  towards  his  stipend. 

It  is  curious  to  note  that  at  this  period  the  sub- 
ordinate offices  of  gate  porter  and  vesturer  were 
considered  to  be  such  desirable  pieces  of  patronage 
that  Dean  Godwin  appointed  his  son  to  the 
former  office  ; and  the  latter  was  enjoyed  by  two 
sons  of  Dean  Rogers.  The  duties  weie,  of  course, 
handed  over  to  deputies — often  ill-paid — with  the 
result  that  they  were  ill  performed.  In  order  to 
illustrate  the  inconvenience  caused  by  a want  of 
proper  supervision  of  the  fabric  by  the  subordinate 
officers  of  the  church  we  will  quote  the  following 
order  of  Chapter  made  in  the  early  years  of  the 
seventeenth  century  : 

Whereas  besides  ye  many  inconveniences  which  of  long  we  have 
suffered  in  ye  Quire  for  want  of  attendance  of  officers,  there  being  none 
to  keep  out  dogs,  to  still  rude  boys  playing  and  running  about  in  ye 
tyme  of  divine  service,  and  besydes  the  ordinary  concourse  of  prentices 
and  other  rude  people  in  our  courts,  cloysters,  and  churchyard  upon 
Sundays  and  holy  days  very  scandalous  in  many  respects  and  much 
prejudiciall  to  our  stately  church  windows  and  ye  like.  There  have 
happened  of  late  some  extraordinary  accidents,  as  the  breaking  up  of  a 

306 


THE  NEW  FOUNDATION 

cupboard  and  one  of  the  petty-canons’  gowns  stolen  out  of  it.  The 
cutting  away  of  a carpet  nayled  on  ye  Table  of  ye  Dean’s  chappell. 
The  blemishing  of  some  of  our  Tombes  by  breaking  off  some  parts. 
The  breaking  off  of  iron  bars  from  our  grates,  &c.  Our  will  is  that 
henceforth  all  those  who  hold  patents  for  the  offices  of  subsacrists, 
vergerers,  porters,  or  bellringers  do  perform  their  duties  in  person,  or 
else  allow  a sufficient  stipend  to  their  substitutes. 

The  Elizabethan  period,  however,  was  not  wholly 
lacking  in  events  which  draw  the  annals  of  Christ 
Church  into  the  current  of  contemporary  public  life. 
In  1568  Odet  de  Coligny,  Cardinal  Chatillon,  who 
shared  the  Huguenot  sympathies  of  his  brother  the 
admiral,  fled  to  England,  where  he  probably  tried  to 
enlist  the  help  of  the  Queen.  At  Canterbury  he 
received  a warm  welcome  from  the  Dean  and  Chapter, 
and  was  allotted  quarters  in  the  old  guest-house, 
known  as  Master  Omer’s.  His  death,  which  occurred 
suddenly  in  1571  (perhaps  not  at  Canterbury,  as 
is  sometimes  stated,  but  at  Nonsuch,  in  Surrey), 
is  said  to  have  been  due  to  poison,  administered 
by  one  of  his  servants  in  an  apple.  His  body  was 
brought  to  Canterbury,  but  in  expectation  of  its 
subsequent  removal  to  France  the  coffin  was  laid  on 
the  floor  of  the  Trinity  Chapel,  at  the  foot  of 
Courtenay’s  monument,  and  merely  bricked  over.  The 
religious  wars  on  the  Continent  left  no  leisure  to 
celebrate  the  obsequies  of  friends  dying  in  far-off 
places ; hence  the  cardinal’s  bones  have  been  left 
without  inscription  in  their  rough  brick  mound  to 
this  day. 

It  may  be  that  the  visit  to  Canterbury  and  the 
sudden  and  sinister  death  in  this  country  of  the 
brother  of  the  great  Coligny  stimulated  interest  in 
the  cause  he  represented;  for  in  1575  we  find  the  first 
mention  in  the  Chapter  Act  Book  of  the  Protes- 
tant refugees : “ Yt  ys  agreed  the  Walloon  strangers 
shall  be  licensed  as  much  as  in  us  the  dean  and 
chapter  lyeth  to  have  the  use  of  their  comen  prayer 
and  sermons  in  the  parish  church  of  St.  Elphies 

3 °7 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

[St.  Alphege’s]  in  Canterbury,  in  such  sort  and  in  such 
tyme  as  the  parishioners  there  be  not  hyndered  or 
disturbed  of  their  comen  prayer.”  Perhaps  this  joint 
use  of  St.  Alphege’s  Church  was  not  found  practicable, 
for  at  about  this  time  the  strangers  effected  a lodgment 
in  the  crypt  of  the  cathedral.  There  is  a tradition 
that  this  was  granted  to  them  by  Queen  Elizabeth  in 
1568  ; but  no  documentary  evidence  is  forthcoming, 
possibly  because  the  Privy  Council  records  from  1567 
to  1570  are  lost.  Whether  by  royal  grant  or  by 
permission  of  the  dean  and  chapter,  French  Protestants 
have  worshipped  in  the  crypt  from  about  1575  ; the 
privilege  was  confirmed  to  them  by  Order  in  Council 
in  1662,  and  has  not  since  been  seriously  questioned. 
There  was  in  Canterbury  as  early  as  1548  a congrega- 
tion of  foreign  Protestants,  who  found  it  advisable  to 
disperse  at  the  accession  of  Queen  Mary.  About 
1575  came  a hundred  families  of  Walloons,  or  French- 
speaking  inhabitants  of  the  Netherlands,  flying  from 
the  cruelties  of  the  Duke  of  Alva.  They  were  accorded 
the  use  of  Ernulph’s  or  the  western  part  of  the  crypt, 
and  were  never  in  possession  of  the  lofty  eastern  crypt 
of  English  William ; this,  it  will  be  remembered,  was 
walled  off  as  the  cellar  of  the  first  prebendary.  There 
is  no  foundation  for  the  statement  sometimes  made 
that  part  of  the  crypt  was  used  by  the  Walloons  as 
a workshop,  since  the  light  would  have  been  quite 
insufficient  for  weaving  or  embroidery ; moreover, 
no  tools  or  utensils  for  any  handicraft  were  found 
in  the  thick  layer  of  gravel  and  debris  removed  a 
few  years  ago  when  the  crypt  was  restored.  But 
the  whole  area  of  Ernulph’s  crypt  would  not 
have  been  too  great  for  the  worship  of  a commu- 
nity which  in  the  seventeenth  century  numbered 
from  two  to  three  thousand  souls  and  furnished  a 
thousand  communicants.  During  the  latter  part  of 
the  seventeenth  century  the  Walloons  were  joined 
by  many  Huguenot  refugees,  who  had  fled  from 
308 


The  French  Church  in  the  “ Black  Prince’s  ” Chantry 


THE  NEW  FOUNDATION 

persecution  in  France,  especially  after  the  revocation 
of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  in  1685.  This  skilful  and 
industrious  community  then  reached  its  highest  point  in 
numbers  and  prosperity,  manufacturing  woollen  fabrics, 
ribbons,  laces,  and  the  most  costly  figured  and  brocaded 
silks.  If  their  besetting  vice,  at  any  rate  among  the 
Walloons,  was  drink,  their  redeeming  virtue  was  their 
sturdy  faithfulness  to  their  religion.  Archbishop  Laud 
in  vain  tried  to  make  them  conform  ; they  persevered  in 
Presbyterian  ways,  though  some  of  their  ministers  have 
been  episcopally  ordained,  and  though  from  1789  to 
1876  they  used  a French  version  of  the  Prayer-book. 
At  about  this  latter  date  an  inquiry  by  the  Charity 
Commissioners  elicited  from  Archbishop  Tait  a defence 
of  the  privileges  of  the  Refugee  Church  on  the  ground 
of  its  historical  significance  as  a monument  of  the 
Reformation*  During  the  nineteenth  century  it  shrank 
so  much  in  numbers  that  the  “ strangers  ” who  once 
employed  two  thousand  looms  are  now  represented  by 
a mere  handful.  In  1895  the  congregation  moved 
into  the  Black  Prince’s  chantry,  where  perhaps  a 
solitary  worshipper  may  sometimes  dream  of  the 
Sundays  of  two  hundred  years  ago  when  his  forefathers 
occupied  seven  bays  of  Ernulf’s  crypt.  Many  and  sad 
are  the  memories  of  ecclesiastical  intolerance  ; here 
is  at  least  one  testimony  that  Christian  sympathies 
^and  friendly  hearts  have  prevailed  over  differences  in 
doctrine  and  in  race. 

W.  D. 

APPENDIX 

Names  of  the  members  of  the  new  foundation^  with  their 
stipends , from  the  treasurers'  accounts  of  1542-3  : 

To  the  Deane  and  Prebendaries 

First  Maister  Deane,  ccc11 
To  Mr.  Doctor  Thornden,  xlu 
To  Mr.  Seynt  leger,jda 

3ii 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

To  Mr.  Doctor  Champyon,  xxx11  xP 
To  Mr.  Goldsonne,  xu 
To  Mr.  Parkehurst,  xP 
To  Mr.  Doctor  Rvdley,  xP 
To  Mr.  Menys,  xP 
To  Mr.  Glasyer,  xP 
To  Mr.  Hunte,  xP 
To  Mr.  Gardener,  xP 
To  Mr.  Myllys,  xl11 
To  Mr.  Danyell,  xP 
To  Mr.  Baptist,  xP 
Sma,  viic  iiiju 

To  ye  Preachers , viz. 

To  Mr.  Searles,  xxiiij11  ijs  ijd 
To  Mr.  Doctor  Rydley,  xxiij11  iis  ijd 
Maister  Drumme,  xxiiij11  iis  iid 
Mr.  Shether,  xxiiij11  iis  iid 
Mr.  Scorye,  xxiiij11  iis  iid 
Mr.  Broke,  xxiiij11  iis  iid 
Sma  cxliiij11 

To  the  Pety-Canons , viz. 

Mr.  Winchepe,  xh 

Mr.  Newberry,  xh 

Mr.  Elphye,  vel  vicem  gerens , xh 

Mr.  Lychefeld,  xh 

Mr.  Sarysbirye,  x11 

Mr.  Chart e,  x11 

Mr.  Austen, 

Mr.  Ickeham,  x11 
Mr.  Otforde,  x11 
Mr,  Boulser,  xh 
Mr.  Anselme,  x11 
Mr.  Awdoen,  x11 
Mr.  Hawke,  x11 

Mr.  Copton  and  leder  (sic),  x11 
Sma  cxl1 


312 


APPENDIX 

To  Mr.  Selbye,  M of  the  Choristers,  xlu 
To  him  for  the  Choristers,  xxxiiju  vj*  viijd 
Sm  xliiju  vij*  viijd 

To  ye  V years,  viz . 

Thomas  Wodd,  viiij11 
John  Marden,  viiju 
Willy  am  Lee,  viij11 
Henry  Turner,  viiju 
Wyllyam  Swifte,  viijh 
John  Jenks,  viijn 
Thomas  Bredkyrke,  viijh 
Robert  Colman,  viiju 
John  Kydder,  viiju 
Thomas  Bull,  viijh 
Rycharde  Lewcome,  viij11 
John  Tropham  and  James  Cancellor,  viij11 
Sma  iiij  xvi11 

To  Mr.  Twyne,  scholemaister,  xxl1 
To  Mr.  Wells,  usher,  x11 
Sma  xxxu 

T hen  follows  a list  of  the  fifty  scholars  who  received 
.£4  a-piece , and  lists  of  the  scholars  studying  at  the 
church's  charges  at  Oxford  and  Cambridge . Of  these  there 
were  twelve  at  each  University  ; those  at  Oxford  received 
in  gross  fioo,  and  those  at  Cambridge  .£78.  (These 
lists  are  printed  in  the  History  of  the  King’s  School, 
Canterbury,  £y  Woodruff  and  Cape,  London,  1908.) 

To  the  Cater,  John  Leysted,  vi11  xiijs  iiijd 
To  the  Butlers  Rychard  Chammer  1 ..u 
William  Stephens  jxu 
To  the  Sacristans — 

Thomas  Callowe 
am  Atwell 
To  the  Cooks — 

Roger  Mantell  1 ..u 
William  Balsar  J xn 


| xiiju  vis  viijd 


313 


CANTERBURT  CATHEDRAL 


viu 


To  the  Belryngars— 

Rauf  Albryght,  vP 
John  Clerke,  vih 
Robert  Absolom,  viu 
Eustace  Coleman 
John  Burton,  viu 
Robert  Danyell,  vih 
To  the  Porters — 

Maister  KyllygreueJ 
Thomas  Johnson 
To  the  Horsekeepers- — 

William  Foster,  xP 
George  Maycote,  xxvj11  viij 
Thomas  Calcote,  xxvj11  viij5 
John  Corneford,  vu 
Sm 


viij11  vj 


V11J 


,a 


Pro  Decimis,  &c. 

Dno  Regi,  cccviiju  xvs  vijd 
Pro  Elemosina  eiusdem,  c11 
Senescallo  ecclesie,  xlj 
Receptori  ecclesie,  xxu 
Auditori  ecclesie,  x11 

Mro  Ryche,  senescallo  in  Essex,  iij11  vi8  viijd 
Subsenescallo  ibidem,  xlu 
Senescallo  in  Surreia,  iij11  xiijs  iiijd 
Procurac’  Archidiacono  Cant.  xxh 
To  ij  petycanons  assigned  by  the  Deane  and  chapter 
to  note  the  absentes  in  the  queyre,  xls 
Penciones— 

Eastry,  vu  vj9  viijd 
Monketon,  xiih  xxd 
Lytleborn  j 

Preston  iuxta  Wyngham  lxxs 
Sheldwide  J 

Sma  huius  libri,  mmccixxiij11  iijs  xjd 


3H 


CHAPTER  XIV 


FROM  LAUD  TO  THE  RESTORATION 
1633-1660 

The  translation  of  William  Laud  from  London  to 
Canterbury  is  an  important  waymark  in  the  history  of 
the  Church  of  England  ; it  may  also  be  taken  as  a 
fresh  starting-point  in  the  history  of  the  cathedral 
church  of  Canterbury.  When  Laud  succeeded  to 
the  primacy  in  1633  t^ie  Church  generally  and  the 
diocese  of  Canterbury  in  particular  were  suffering 
from  the  effects  of  Abbot’s  apathetic  and  inefficient 
rule.  In  the  parish  churches  there  was  much 
slovenliness  and  disorder,  and  even  in  the  cathedral 
a comely  face  of  external  worship  was  scarcely  pre- 
served. Archbishop  Laud  perceived  perhaps  more 
clearly  than  any  of  his  predecessors  since  the  Reforma- 
tion the  need  of  a well-ordered  and  decent  ceremonial 
for  a great  historical  church,  and  he  came  to  Canter- 
bury firmly  resolved  to  restore  to  the  Church  of 
JEngland  her  heritage  in  this  respect.  He  brought  to 
the  task  zeal,  courage,  and  learning,  but  this  excellent 
equipment  was  more  than  counterbalanced  by  defects 
of  temper  and  the  entire  absence  of  tact.  So  that,  to 
quote  the  words  of  one  of  his  most  sympathetic 
biographers,  “ there  has  seldom  lived  a man  who 
contrived  that  his  good  should  be  more  virulently 
spoken  of.” 

With  characteristic  courage  Laud  determined  to 
begin  his  reforms  at  the  top,  and  with  this  object  he 
gave  notice  almost  immediately  after  his  enthronisa- 
tion  of  his  intention  to  visit  his  cathedral  church  in 

315 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

the  following  spring.  The  Dean  and  Chapter  lost  no 
time  in  setting  their  house  in  order  ; indeed,  they  seem 
to  have  done  everything  they  could  to  anticipate  the 
wishes  of  their  visitor.  In  the  choir  a new  “ Com- 
munion table  ” was  set  up,  which  was  apparently 
mounted  upon  a wooden  platform  approached  by 
steps — an  arrangement  which  gave  especial  offence  to 
the  Puritans  and  actually  formed  one  of  the  specific 
charges  made  against  Laud  at  his  trial.1  A new 
carpet  or  cloth  of  purple  velvet  edged  with  a deep 
band  of  gold  lace  costing  £36  7s.  was  purchased  for 
the  altar,  behind  which  a rich  hanging  of  needle- 
work, called  the  “ Glory  Cloth,”  was  suspended. 
Richard  Culmer,  the  iconoclastic  Puritan,  has  given 
us  a particular  description  of  this  most  idolatrous 
costly  Glory  Cloth  or  Back  Cloth,”  as  he  calls  it. 
“ It  was  made,”  he  says,  “ of  very  rich  embroidery  of 
gold  and  silver,  the  name  Jehovah  on  the  top  in  gold 
upon  a cloth  of  silver,  and  below  it  a semicircle  of 
gold,  and  from  thence  glorious  rays,  and  clouds,  and 
gleams,  and  points  of  rays  direct  and  waved  stream 
downwards  upon  the  altar.” 2 

Further  ornaments  for  the  altar  acquired  at  the 
same  time  were  a pair  of  candlesticks,  a basin  for  the 
ablutions  of  the  priest  (both  doubtless  ot  silver,  since 
they  cost  ^73  6s.),  and  a Bible  and  Prayer-book,  both 
with  silver-gilt  covers.3 

Neale  in  his  “ History  of  the  Puritans  ” 4 says  that 
the  altar  of  Canterbury  Cathedral  “ was  furnished 
according  to  Bishop  Andrewes’  model,”  and  proceeds 
to  give  a list  of  the  vessels  and  ornaments  used  in  the 

1 “ To  George  Lancelot,  joyner,  for  a Communion  table  of  degrees, 
308.”  Treasurer’s  Accounts. 

2 “ Cathedrall  Newes  from  Canterbury  ” (London,  1644),  P*  292* 

3 “ Pro  duobus  candelabris  et  malluvia  pro  tabula  sacre  Eucharistic, 
lxxiiin  vi®.  Pro  duobus  cerariis  pro  candelabris,  ii3  vid.  Pro  nova 
biblia  et  libro  communium  precum  pro  Eucharistia,  xxxvi®.  Pro 
argento  celato  pro  eisdem  libris,  x11  iiij3.”  Treasurer’s  Accounts,  1633. 

4 Vol.  ii.  p.  223. 

316 


LAUD  TO  THE  RESTORATION 

bishop’s  private  chapel ; but  the  Canterbury  inventory 
of  1634  makes  no  mention  of  several  of  the  articles 
mentioned  by  Neale,  so  that  his  account  of  what 
was  in  use  at  Canterbury  seems  to  be  untrustworthy. 
The  new  ornaments  were  in  use  on  Christmas  Day 
of  the  same  year,  and  attracted  some  attention,  for  an 
alderman  of  the  city  wrote  on  a flyleaf  of  his  Bible  the 
following  memorandum  : “ Christ-tide  1633  was  the 
first  day  of  the  high  altar  with  candlesticks  on  it  and 
candles  in  them,  and  other  dressings  very  brave  in 
Christ  Church,  Canterbury.”1 

Laud  no  doubt  marked  with  satisfaction  the  “ brave 
dressings  ” of  the  altar  when  he  came  to  Canterbury 
in  the  following  spring,  but  he  seems  to  have  had  no 
conception  of  the  intensely  Puritan  spirit  rampant 
throughout  his  diocese,  to  which  his  ritual  reforms 
were  as  a red  rag  to  a bull. 

The  growth  of  Puritanism  in  Kent  was  due  partly 
to  the  geographical  position  of  the  county.  Popish 
recusants  had  soon  discovered  that  Kent  was  far  too 
much  under  the  eye  of  a rigid  and  inquisitorial 
Government  to  make  it  a desirable  place  of  residence  ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  there  had  been  a constant 
influx  of  foreign  Protestants,  bringing  with  them  the 
polity  and  theology  of  the  Continental  Reformers. 
Hence  it  was  in  his  own  diocese  and  in  his  own  cathedral 
city  that  the  Archbishop  met  the  bitterest  opposition. 

The  articles  of  inquiry  issued  by  Laud  for  his 
visitation,  and  the  answers  of  the  Dean  and  Chapter 
(to  which  the  Archbishop  has  in  some  cases  added  an 
autograph  note),  are  preserved  amongst  the  cathedral 
archives,  and  one  or  two  are  worth  quoting  for  the 
light  they  throw  upon  the  usages  of  the  times.  Thus, 
to  the  Archbishop’s  inquiry  as  to  the  number  of 
sermons  preached  in  the  cathedral  the  Dean  and  Chapter 
replied  that  one  sermon  was  preached  in  the  cathedral 
on  every  Sunday  and  holy  day  and  two  on  the  feasts 
1 “Cathedrall  Newes,”  ut  supra. 


317 


CANTERBURT  CATHEDRAL 

of  the  Nativity,  Easter,  and  Pentecost,  “ besides  divers 
extraordinaries  as  his  sacred  Majesties  inauguration, 
the  Rogation,  the  Sessions,  and  the  fifth  of  November,” 
To  an  inquiry  as  to  the  condition  of  the  precincts,  &c., 
the  Dean  and  Chapter  made  answer : “ The  church- 
yard (commonly  so  reputed)  is  profaned,  as  we  con- 
ceive, by  four  fairs  yearly  there  kept  time  out  of  mind, 
by  sinks,  by  annoyance  of  a stable,  by  divers  other 
buildings  in  and  about  the  same  ; the  fair  and  houses 
being  out  at  lease.”  In  the  margin  Laud  wrote : 
“ Let  me  have  inquiry  and  satisfaction  concerning 
fairs,  sinks,  and  stables.” 

A more  serious  irregularity  which  came  to  light  in 
an  answer  to  a question  relating  to  the  State  prayers 
was  the  occasional  omission  of  the  prayer  for  the 
Church  Militant.  The  Chapter  replied  : “ We  have 
been  used  to  pray  for  the  King’s  Majesty,  the  Queen, 
the  Prince  and  the  Royal  progeny  . . . save  only  that 
we  have  sometimes  omitted  to  praise  God  for  all  those 
who  are  departed  out  of  this  life  in  the  faith  of  Christ, 
which  we  shall  take  care  hereafter  to  be  observed.” 
To  which  Laud  added  tersely  : “ Let  ye  canon  be 
observed.” 

A question  about  the  letting  of  prebendal  houses 
to  laymen  elicited  the  fact  that  this  was  a common 
practice.  Laud  opposed  it  on  the  ground  that  the 
presence  of  lay  people  within  the  precincts  was  detri- 
mental to  the  secluded  collegiate  life  for  which  the 
Statutes  made  provision,  and  even  went  the  length 
of  obtaining  an  Order  in  Council  forbidding  the 
letting  or  lending  of  a prebendal  house  to  any  person 
who  was  not  a member  of  the  church. 

The  Dean  and  Chapter,  however,  pointed  out  to  the 
Archbishop  that  they  were  very  heavily  burdened  by 
taxation,  especially  by  the  imposition  of  the  obnoxious 
“ ship-money,”  and  that  it  was  a very  convenient 
thing  to  be  able  “ to  lay  part  of  ye  burdens  upon  such 
of  ye  laity  as  dwell  among  us,  who  when  they  are 
318 


LAUD  TO  THE  RESTORATION 


persons  of  quality  bear  a considerable  part.”  They 
also  pleaded  for  consideration  on  the  ground  that  they 
had,  in  deference  to  the  Archbishop’s  wishes,  already 
relinquished  the  custom  of  granting  leases  for  lives,  and 
had  further  voluntarily  given  up  the  five  pounds  a 
year  which  each  prebendary  had  hitheito  enjoyed 
towards  the  repair  of  his  house.  Whether  the  order 
was  modified  or  not  we  do  not  know,  but  the  practice 
was  at  any  rate  revived  after  the  Restoration,  as  also 
was  the  more  pernicious  one  of  granting  leases  for 
lives. 

At  the  conclusion  of  his  visitation  the  Archbishop 
asked  to  be  supplied  with  a copy  of  the  statutes  in 
order  that  he  might  amend  them.  This  appears  to 
have  caused  some  apprehensions,  for  the  Dean  and 
Chapter  thought  it  prudent  to  offer  his  Grace  the  sum 
of  fifty  pounds  pro  paterna  benevolentia . Though 

to  modern  eyes  the  gift  looks  suspiciously  like  a bribe, 
it  was  quite  in  accordance  with  the  practice  of  the 
times,  and  Laud  doubtless  accepted  it  without  any 
qualms  of  conscience. 

A copy  of  the  revised  statutes  was  received  in  1637. 
The  alterations  and  additions  for  which  Laud  was 
responsible,  and  for  which  he  obtained  the  King’s 
licence,  were  neither  many  nor  important.  Several 
related  to  the  King’s  scholars  and  their  masters  ; 
others  sanctioned  usages  which  had  long  been  preva- 
lent, but  which  hitherto  had  lacked  statutable  autho- 
rity— e.g<  the  office  of  epistoler  and  gospeller  had 
long  been  obsolete,  and  the  stipend  allotted  to  these 
officers  by  the  statutes  had  for  some  years  been  paid 
to  four  instrumentalists  whose  duty  it  was  “ to  support 
with  cornets  and  sackbuts  the  melody  in  the  choir.” 
Accordingly  two  corneteers  and  two  sackbutters  now 
became  statutable  officers. 

Into  the  chapter  relating  to  the  conduct  of  divine  ser- 
vice (No.  34)  Laud  introduced  a clause  which  gave  great 
offence  to  the  Puritan  party,  although  as  a matter  of  fact 

319 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

it  merely  confirmed  a custom  already  in  use.  The  clause 
refers  to  bowing  towards  the  altar  on  entering  the 
choir,  and  the  full  text  is  as  follows  : “ Our  will  is 
that  each  minister  of  whatever  rank  he  may  be  on 
entering  the  choir  shall  adore  the  Divine  Majesty  by 
humbly  bowing  towards  the  altar,  and  then  make 
their  due  reverence  to  the  Dean.”  This  was  after- 
wards used  as  evidence  of  the  Romish  proclivities  of 
Laud.  But  in  his  defence  Dr.  Blechynden,  one  of 
che  prebendaries,  deposed  that  the  practice  was  in 
vogue  before  the  new  statutes  were  received,  and  that 
the  custom  had  prevailed  ever  since  his  own  installation, 
which  took  place  “ above  ten  years  ago.”1 

A notable  addition  to  the  fittings  of  the  church 
was  the  handsome  marble  font,  which  still  retains 
its  place  in  the  nave.  This  was  a gift  from  Dr. 
John  Warner,  one  of  the  prebendaries,  and  after- 
wards Bishop  of  Rochester.  Previous  to  its  erection 
the  cathedral  church  seems  to  have  had  no  fixed  font, 
the  Elizabethan  inventories  merely  mentioning  “ a 
Bason  of  brasse  for  Christinynge  with  a foot  of  Iron.” 
In  pre-Reformation  times,  however,  the  church  cer- 
tainly possessed  a font,  for  John  Stone  mentions  the 
baptism  in  the  nave  of  the  son  of  John  Frankleyn,  the 
prior’s  butler,  in  1443. 2 And  three  years  later  a 
font  with  a silver  bowl  was  purchased  from  a London 
goldsmith  at  a cost  of  .£14. 3 It  would  seem  that  this 
silver  font  was  sent  up  to  London  for  use  at  royal 
baptisms.  What  happened  to  it  after  the  suppression 
of  the  monastery  is  not  certainly  known,  but  it  was 
probably  one  of  the  things  upon  which  Henry  VIII 
laid  his  sacrilegious  hands,  for  in  a list  of  the  King’s 
jewels  the  following  item  occurs  : “ A fonte  chased 

1 “ Library  of  Anglo-Catholic  Theology,”  vol.  v.  pt.  ii. 

2 Stone’s  “ Chronicle,”  ut  supra , p.  31. 

3 “ Johi  Orewell  in  plena  solutione  facture  pelvis  ffontalis,  xiiij11. 
Expens’,  Johis  Orewell  venient’  London  pro  pelve  frontal,  x8.” 
Prior’s  Day  Book , 1447. 

320 


rt,!  Fon‘ 


THE  FONT,  1639 


' 


LAUD  TO  THE  RESTORATION 

with  men,  beastes,  and  fowles,  half  gilte,  with  a cover 
gilte,  poiz  together  cciiij  oz.”  Nevertheless,  as  late 
as  1620  there  was  an  opinion  abroad  that  the  silver 
font  was  still  at  Canterbury,  for  in  the  above  year 
Archbishop  Abbot  wrote  to  his  Chapter  asking  them 
“ to  make  search  for  a font  of  silver  wherein  the  King’s 
children  of  ancient  time  have  been  christened,  and 
that  if  there  be  any  such  thing  in  your  custody  you 
should  with  all  speed  send  it  up  safely  by  messenger, 
. . . and  if  you  have  no  such  thing,  you  are  to  certify 
me  speedily  what  you  find  in  any  records  or  register 
hath  been  done  therewithal  or  how  your  predecessors 
parted  with  it.”  1 The  reply  of  the  Chapter  is  not 
extant,  but  from  the  absence  of  any  such  article  from 
the  Elizabethan  inventories  it  is  clear  that  the  silver 
font  was  no  longer  in  the  possession  of  the  dean  and 
chapter. 

Less  than  ten  years  after  its  erection  Dr.  Warner’s 
font  was  demolished  by  the  Puritans,  but  its  component 
parts  were  recovered  by  William  Somner,  who  con- 
cealed them  until  the  restoration  of  the  monarchy, 
when  the  fragments  were  brought  out  of  hiding  and 
re-erected  in  the  cathedral,  again  at  the  cost  of  the 
donor.  It  is  pleasant  to  add  that  when  all  was 
complete  the  first  child  to  be  baptized  in  the  restored 
font  was  the  infant  son  of  the  man  by  whose  loving 
care  its  fragments  had  been  preserved  throughout  the 
troublous  times.2 

But  to  revert  to  the  general  history  of  the  times. 
A singularly  ill-judged  attempt  by  Laud  to  enforce 
conformity  upon  the  Walloon  and  French  community, 
which  for  a number  of  years  had  possessed  prescriptive 
rights  of  conducting  a Presbyterian  form  of  service 
in  the  crypt  of  the  cathedral,  greatly  intensified  his 

1 The  letter  is  preserved  amongst  the  cathedral  archives. 

2 “ i663,August  16.  Frances  \sic\  ye  son  of  Mr.  William  Somner, 
auditor  of  this  church,  and  Barbary,  his  wife.”  “ Registers  of  Canterbury 
Cathedral.” 


X 


321 


CANTERBURT  CATHEDRAL 

unpopularity  at  this  juncture,  and  after  exaspera- 
ting public  feeling  he  was  eventually  compelled  to 
relinquish  the  attempt.  The  fall  of  one  of  the  pin- 
nacles of  the  “ Bell-Harry  ” tower  (upon  the  metal 
flag  of  which  the  Dean  and  Chapter  had  lately 
caused  the  Archbishop’s  arms  to  be  emblazoned)  was 
naturally  looked  upon  by  the  Puritans  as  a portent  of 
the  speedy  downfall  of  the  “ proud  prelate.”  Culmer, 
who  recites  the  circumstance  with  much  glee,  says  that 
the  Dean  and  Chapter,  elated  by  a report  (which  turned 
out  to  be  false)  that  the  Scots  had  accepted  the  English 
Prayer-book,  expressed  their  satisfaction  by  setting 
upon  the  four  pinnacles  of  the  tower  “ four  great  iron 
fanes  or  flags,  on  which  the  coat-arms  of  the  King, 
Prince,  and  Church  were  severally  gilded  and  painted.” 
On  Holy  Innocents’  Day  1639  t^ie  pinnacle  which  bore 
the  Archbishop’s  arms  was  blown  down,  and  in  its 
fall  it  demolished  part  of  the  cloister  roof,  opposite 
to  the  door  leading  to  the  Martyrdom  transept.  So 
violent  was  the  impact  that  it  burst  through  the  lead, 
planks,  timbers,  and  stone  arch  of  the  cloister  “ as  if 
it  had  been  done  with  cannon-shot.”  Upon  the 
groiningof  the  roof  where  the  pinnacle  fell  was  a boss 
bearing  the  arms  of  the  see  of  Canterbury.  “ Thus,” 
says  Culmer,  “ the  arms  of  the  present  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury  break  down  the  armes  of  the  Arch- 
bishoprick  or  See  of  Canterbury.”  1 In  the  following 
year  (1640)  a very  small  change  in  the  manner  of 
conducting  the  cathedral  service  was  sufficient  to 
cause  the  pent-up  storm  of  puritanical  disaffection  to 
break  out.  For  some  years  past  it  had  been  the 
practice  on  sermon  days  for  the  congregation  to 
adjourn  to  the  chapter-house  after  prayers  in  the  choir 
for  the  purpose  of  listening  to  the  preacher.  Laud 
disliked  the  unseemly  rush  for  good  places  which 

1 “ Cathedrall  Newes  ” utsu'pra.  The  extent  of  the  damage  may  still 
be  traced  by  the  absence  of  heraldic  shields  at  the  east  end  of  the  south 
alley  of  the  cloister. 

322 


LAUD  TO  THE  RESTORATION 

occurred  when  the  pulpit  was  to  be  occupied  by  an 
eloquent  divine,  and  in  accordance  with  his  wishes  the 
custom  was  discontinued.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Puritan  party  favoured  the  44  Sermon-house,”  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  both  warmer  and  more  commodious 
than  the  choir,  where,  moreover,  the  sermon  was 
44  hedged  in  by  the  cathedral  ceremonious  altar  ser- 
vice,” which  they  abominated.  On  the  feast  of  the 
Epiphany  divine  service  was  interrupted  by  44  ye  voice 
of  one  crying  audibly,  4 This  is  idolatry,’”  and  on  the 
Sunday  following  when  prayer  should  have  been 
concluded  at  the  altar  the  canons  were  44  mutinously 
disturbed  by  a continuance  of  singing  of  psalms  and 
by  words  in  the  throng, 4 Down  with  the  altar  ! Down 
with  the  altar  ! ’ ” The  above  words  are  quoted  from 
a memorandum  preserved  amongst  the  cathedral 
archives  to  which  seven  of  the  canons  set  their  names. 
The  memorandum  records  that  the  prebendaries 
recognised  that  the  cause  of  the  disturbance  was  44  the 
discontent  of  the  people  at  the  removing  of  ye  Sermon 
from  our  Chapter -house  to  the  Quire,”  and  that  they 
therefore  decided  to  revert  to  the  former  practice  for 
the  sake  of  peace  and  quietness.  Dean  Bargrave  was 
absent  from  home  at  the  time,  but  on  hearing  what 
the  chapter  had  done  he  wrote : 44  The  times  are  too 
much  indisposed  to  give  us  any  speedy  remedy,  where- 
Tore  I very  well  approve  of  your  removing  the  sermons 
into  the  chapter-house.” 

But  the  country  was  now  on  the  verge  of  civil  war, 
and  it  would  appear  that  the  cathedral  authorities, 
foreseeing  the  coming  struggle  between  King  and 
Parliament,  were  actually  prepared  to  turn  the  church 
into  a fortress  ; for  they  purchased  a barrel  of  gun- 
powder, arms,  and  ammunition,  all  of  which  they  laid 
up  in  the  cathedral  itself.  For  this  act  of  incredible 
folly  they  had  to  pay  dearly.  In  the  month  of  August 
1642  Colonel  Sandys  arrived  in  Canterbury  with  a 
troop  of  horse,  and  demanded  the  keys  of  the  church. 

323 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

What  followed  will  be  best  told  in  the  words  of 
Dr.  Paske,  the  vice-Dean,  who  in  a letter  “ to  an 
Honourable  Lord,”  dated  August  30,  1642,  writes  as 
follows  : 

Colonell  Sandis,  arriving  here  with  his  Troop  on  Friday  night,  caused 
a strict  watch  and  sentinels  to  be  set  both  in  the  church  and  upon  our 
several  houses,  to  the  great  affright  of  all  inhabitants.  This  done, 
Sergeant  Cockaine  came  to  me,  and  in  the  name  of  the  Parliament 
demanded  to  see  the  arms  of  the  church  and  the  store  of  powder  of  the 
county,  which  I presently  showed  him.  . . . The  next  morning  we 
were  excluded  from  the  church  and  might  not  be  permitted  to  enter 
for  the  performance  of  our  divine  exercises ; but  about  8 of  the  clock 
Sir  Michael  Livesey  attended  with  many  soldiers,  came  to  our  offices 
and  commanded  them  to  deliver  up  the  keys  of  the  church  to  one  of 
their  company,  which  we  did,  and  thereupon  he  departed.  When  the 
soldiers,  entering  the  church  and  quire,  giant-like  began  to  fight  against 
God  Himself,  overthrew  the  Communion  table,  tore  the  velvet  cloth 
from  before  it,  defaced  the  goodlyscreen  of  tabernacle  work,  violated 
the  monuments  of  the  dead,  spoiled  the  organs,  brake  down  the  ancient 
rails  and  seats  with  the  brazen  eagle  that  did  support  the  Bible,  forced 
open  the  cupboards  of  the  singing-men,  rent  some  of  their  surplices, 
gowns,  and  Bibles,  and  carried  away  others,  mangled  all  our  service 
books  and  books  of  Common  Prayer,  bestrowing  the  whole  pavement 
with  leaves  thereof — a miserable  spectacle  to  all  good  eyes.  But  as  if 
all  this  had  been  too  little  to  satisfy  the  fury  of  some  indiscreet  zealots 
among  them  (for  many  did  abhor  what  was  done  already),  they  further 
expressed  their  malice  upon  the  arras  hangings  of  the  quire,  representing 
the  whole  story  of  our  Saviour,  wherein  observing  the  figures  of  Christ 
(I  tremble  to  express  their  blasphemies),  one  said  “ Here  is  Christ,”  and 
swore  that  he  would  stab  Him,  which  they  did  accordingly  so  far  as  the 
figures  were  capable  thereof,  besides  many  other  villainies.  And  not 
content  therewith,  finding  another  statue  of  Christ  in  the  Frontispiece 
of  the  South-gate  they  discharged  against  it  forty  shot  at  the  least, 
triumphing  much  when  they  did  hit  it  in  the  head  or  face,  as  if  they 
were  resolved  to  crucify  Him  again  in  His  figure  whom  they  could  not 
hurt  in  truth.  The  tumults  appeased,  they  presently  departed  for 
Dover.1 

It  may  be  noticed  that  the  destruction  does  not 
appear  to  have  extended  to  the  stained-glass  windows ; 
and  it  would  seem  that  the  Chapter  took  special  mea- 
sures for  protecting  them,  since  from  an  entry  in 
the  treasurer’s  accounts  we  learn  that  the  bellringers 
1 Printed  in  London  September  9 in  the  same  year. 


3H 


LAUD  TO  THE  RESTORATION 

received  fifteen  shillings  “ to  keep  ye  church  windows 
from  defacing.” 

Dr.  Bargrave  was  not  at  the  deanery  when  the 
cathedral  was  looted  by  the  troopers,  but  he  was 
arrested  at  Gravesend  shortly  afterwards,  probably  on 
account  of  his  complicity  in  the  concealment  of  arms 
in  the  church,  and  for  three  months  was  confined  in 
the  Fleet  prison.  Towards  the  end  of  the  year  he  was 
released,  and  returned  to  Canterbury,  where  about 
Christmas  he  received  the  King  and  Queen.1 * * * *  At  the 
same  time  great  efforts  were  made  to  repair  the  damage 
done  in  the  choir.  Culmer  tells  us  that  the  Communion 
table  was  set  up  again  “ altarwise  that  day  the  sermon 
was  preached  there  before  the  King,”  but  that  the 
daily  choral  service  was  discontinued,  and  that  only  a 
“ plaine  Service-book  service  ” was  read  in  the  Sermon- 
house.  In  order  to  pay  their  assessment  to  the  levy  for 
the  “ speedy  and  effectual  reducing  of  the  rebels  in  His 
Majesty’s  kingdom  of  Ireland,”  the  Dean  and  Chapter 
now  determined  to  sell  some  of  the  church  plate.  The 
order  for  the  sale  states  that  : 

Whereas  the  bleeding  estate  of  the  Kingdom  of  Ireland  together  with 
the  lamentable  condition  of  this  Kingdome  of  England,  do  call  for  the 
help  and  assistance  of  all  his  Majesty’s  loyall  and  obedient  subjects, 
We  the  Dean  and  Chapter  being  willing  to  express  ourselves  therein 
according  to  the  utmost  of  our  power,  and  finding  that  the  Church  is 
much  indebted  by  reason  of  divers  arreres  of  rent,  and  other  great 
"expenses  occasioned  by  severall  accidents,  do  now  order  and  decree  in 
this  case  of  extremity  that  the  great  guilt  bason  and  two  faire  guilt 
candlesticks  with  one  rich  piece  of  imbroidered  worke  belonging  unto 
this  Church  shall  be  sold  to  the  best  advantage  as  shall  be  thought  fit 
by  Mr.  Deane  and  Dr.  Jackson  and  the  greater  number  of  the  preben- 
daries at  home.  And  that  thirty  pounds  of  the  money  receaved  by  them 
for  this  plate  and  worke  shalbe  allowed  in  one  grosse  sum  towards  the 
relief  of  our  distressed  brethren  in  Ireland,  when  the  same  shalbe 
lawfully  demanded  . . . and  that  the  rest  of  the  money  receaved  for 

1 “ To  Goodman  Grant  for  keeping  ye  postern  gate  when  the  King 

was  here,  7s  6.  Given  to  the  King’s  footmen,  five  pounds ; to  his 

coachman,  408 ; to  some  yeomen  of  the  guard,  208 ; to  Mr.  Newton  a 

gross  sum  to  be  distributed  to  many,  2011  in  all — 281*.”  Treasurer’s 

Accounts. 


325 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

the  said  plate  and  embrodery  work  shalbe  ordered  and  disposed  of  as 
shall  be  thought  convenient  by  the  Deane  and  Chapter  or  greater  part 
of  them  within  the  precincts  of  the  Church  when  any  urgent  occasion 
shall  require  the  disposall  thereof. 

The  order  is  signed  by  Dean  Bargrave  and  six  of  the 
prebendaries.  It  must  have  been  almost  the  last 
piece  of  capitular  business  in  which  the  Dean  took 
part,  for  he  died  in  the  following  January.  His 
successor,  George  Aglionby,  was  never  installed,  and 
died  within  the  same  year.  Dr.  Turner,  who  suc- 
ceeded him,  survived  to  the  Restoration,  but  he  too 
was  unable  to  obtain  installation  until  seventeen  years 
after  his  appointment. 

In  March  1643  the  prospects  of  the  capitular  body 
seemed  somewhat  brighter,  for  in  that  month  a 
special  order  was  issued  by  the  Parliament  for  the 
protection  “ of  the  prebendaries  of  Christ  Church 
and  of  the  famous  and  magnificent  church  of  Canter- 
bury.” The  order  enacted  that  “ ready  obedience  be 
given  to  the  prebendaries,  and  that  neither  any  soldier 
or  townsman  or  other  shall  use  any  misdemeanour, 
violence  or  restraint  of  liberty  either  to  the  preben- 
daries now  residing  at  Canterbury,  nor  to  any  the 
inhabitants  within  the  precincts  of  the  church,  nor 
that  any  person  or  persons  under  any  colour  or  pretext 
whatsoever  presume  to  use  or  offer  any  violence,  either 
by  themselves  or  others,  unto  the  gates,  houses,  or 
walls  within  the  precincts  of  the  said  church  itself,  or 
windows  thereunto  belonging  as  they  will  answer  the 
contrary  to  the  House  at  their  perills,”  &c.  But  the 
protection  afforded  by  this  order  was  of  short  duration, 
for  before  the  year  was  out  the  passing  of  an  Act  for 
the  abolition  of  deans  and  chapters  deprived  the 
cathedral  of  its  proper  custodians  and  again  laid  the 
fabric  open  to  the  sacrilegious  violence  of  the  Puritans. 
It  was  now  that  the  “ more  orderly  and  thorough 
reformation,”  as  Culmer  calls  the  wanton  destruction 
of  many  priceless  examples  of  ancient  art,  began.  In 
326 


LAUD  JO  THE  RESTORATION 

order  to  do  full  justice  to  the  proceedings  in  which 
this  shameless  iconoclast  took  a prominent  part  we 
must  quote  his  own  words  : 

When  the  Commissioners  entred  upon  the  execution  of  that 
Ordinance  in  that  Cathedral,  they  knew  not  where  to  begin,  the  images 
and  pictures  were  so  numerous,  as  if  that  superstitious  Cathedral  had 
been  built  for  no  other  end  but  to  stable  Idolls.  At  last  they  resolved 
to  begin  with  the  window  on  the  east  of  the  high  altar  beyond  the 
Saynted-Traitor  Archbishop  Becket’s  shrine.  . . . But  the  Commis- 
sioners knew  not  what  pictures  were  in  that  Eastmost  window,  and 
coming  to  it  the  first  picture  they  found  there  was  of  Austin  the  Monke, 
who  was  the  first  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  that  ever  was  ; and  so  it 
casually  fell  out  that  the  image  of  this  Arch-Prelate  of  Canterburie  was 
the  first  that  was  demolished  in  that  Cathedrall.  Many  window-images 
or  pictures  in  glass  were  destroyed  that  day,  and  many  idolls  of  stone, 
thirteen  representing  Christ  and  His  twelve  Apostles  standing  over  the 
West  door  of  the  Quire,  were  all  hewed  down  and  12  more  at  the  North 
door  of  the  Quire,  and  12  Mytred  Saints  sate  aloft  over  the  West  door 
of  the  Quire,  which  were  all  cast  down  headlong,  and  some  fell  on  their 
heads  and  their  myters  brake  their  necks.  . . . The  Commissioners  fell 
presently  to  work  on  the  great  idolatrous  window  standing  on  the  left 
hand  as  you  go  up  into  the  Quire  : for  which  window  (some  affirm) 
many  thousand  pounds  have  been  offered  by  outlandish  Papists.  In 
that  window  was  now  a picture  of  God  the  Father,  and  of  Christ,  besides 
a large  Crucifix,  and  the  picture  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  form  of  a 
Dove,  and  of  the  12  Apostles ; and  in  that  window  were  seven  large 
pictures  of  the  Virgin  Marie,  in  seven  several  glorious  appearances,  as 
of  the  Angells  lifting  her  into  heaven,  and  the  Sun,  Moon, and  stars  under 
her  feet,  and  every  picture  had  an  inscription  under  it  beginning  with 
Gaude  Maria  sports  a Dei , that  is  rejoyce  Mary  thou  Spouse  of  God. 
There  were  in  this  window  many  other  pictures  of  Popish  saints,  as  of 
^jSt.  George,  &c.  But  their  prime  Cathedrall  saint — Archbishop  Thomas 
Becket — was  most  rarely  pictured  in  that  window,  in  full  proportion, 
with  Cope,  Rochet,  Mitre,  Crosier  and  all  his  Pontificalibus  [ sic\  And 
in  the  foot  of  that  huge  window  was  a title  intimating  that  the  window 
was  dedicated  to  the  Virgin  Mary.  In  laudem  et  honor em  beatissime 
Virginis  Marie  Matris  Dei , &c.  . . . Whilst  judgment  was  executing 
on  the  idolls  in  that  window,  the  Cathedrallists  cryed  out  again  for  their 
great  Diana,  hold  your  hands,  holt,  holt,  &c.  A minister  being  then 
at  the  top  of  the  citie  ladder  near  60  steps  high,  with  a whole  pike  in  his 
hand  ratling  down  proud  Becket’s  glassy  bones  (others  then  present 
would  not  venter  so  high),  to  him  it  was  said  ’tis  a shame  for  a minister 
to  be  seen  there  ; the  minister  replyed,  Sir,  I count  it  no  shame,  but 
an  honour,  my  Master  whipt  the  living  buyers  and  sellers  out  of  the 
Temple  ; these  are  dead  Idolls  which  defile  the  worship  of  God  here, 
being  the  fruits  and  occasions  of  Idolatry  : Some  wisht  he  might  break 

327 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

hi*  neck,  others  said  it  should  cost  blood.  But  he  finished  the  work 
and  came  down  well,  and  was  in  very  good  health  when  this  was 
written.1  Many  other  Images  were  defaced  in  other  windows  there, 
severall  pictures  of  God  the  Father,  of  Crucifixes,  and  men  praying  to 
Crucifixes,  and  to  the  Virgin  Mary  ; and  Images  lay  on  the  tombs,  with 
eyes  and  hands  lifted  up,  and  right  over  them  was  pictured  God  the  Father, 
embracing  a Crucifix,  to  which  the  Image  seemed  to  pray.2  There  was 
a Cardinally  hat  as  red  as  blood,  painted  in  the  highest  window  in  that 
Cathedrall  within  Bell-Harry  steeple,  over  the  quire  door,  covering  the 
Archbishop’s  arms,  which  hat  had  not  so  much  respect  showed  it  as 
Cardinall  Wolsey’s  hat  had  at  Court,  it  was  not  bowed  to  but  rattled 
down  . . . the  last  execution  against  the  Idols  in  that  Cathedrall  was 
done  in  the  Cloysters,  divers  crucifixes  and  mitred  saints  were  battered 
in  pieces  there  : St.  Dunstan’s  image  pulling  the  Devil  by  the  nose 
with  a pair  of  tongs  was  pulled  down,  Devill  and  all.  When  the 
Cathedrall  men  heard  that  Ordinance  of  Parliament  against  Idolatrous 
Monuments  was  to  be  put  into  execution,  they  covered  a complete 
Crucifix  in  the  Sermon-house  with  thin  boards,  and  painted  them  to 
preserve  their  Crucifix,  but  their  jugling  was  found  out,  and  the 
Crucifix  demolisht.3 

In  the  same  year  which  witnessed  this  wholesale 
destruction  the  chief  instigator  and  participator  was 
made  a six-preacher,  the  warrant  for  his  appointment 
describing  him  as  “ Mr.  Richard  Culmer,  Master  of 
Arts,  a godly  and  orthodox  divine,”  whose  fitness  to 
preach  in  the  cathedral  was  certified  “ by  the  mayor 
and  other  deputy  lieutenants  of  the  corporation  of 
the  city  of  Canterbury  ” ! 

The  cathedral  church  and  its  revenues  were  now 
placed  in  the  hands  of  sequestrators,  with  Captain 
Thomas  Monins  as  treasurer-general.  Hasted  (quoting 
from  a MS.  formerly  in  the  possession  of  the  Monins 

1 The  minister  was  Culmer  himself.  Although  he  “ came  down  well,” 
Gostling  relates  that  he  narrowly  escaped  a violent  death ; for  while 
he  was  on  the  ladder  “ a townsman  desired  to  know  what  he  was  doing. 
* I am  doing  the  work  of  the  Lord,’  says  he.  ‘ Then,’  replied  the  other, 
‘ if  it  please  the  Lord  I will  help  you,’  and  threw  a stone  with  so  good 
will  that  if  the  saint  had  not  ducked,  he  might  have  laid  his  own 
bones  among  the  rubbish  he  was  making.”  Gostling’s  “ Walk,”  ed.  1825, 
p.  227. 

2 This  doubtless  refers  to  the  anthropomorphic  picture  of  the  Holy 
Trinity  on  the  tester  over  the  Black  Prince’s  tomb. 

3 “ Cathedrall  Newes,”  ut  supra. 

328 


LAUD  TO  THE  RESTORATION 

family,  but  now  believed  to  be  no  longer  extant)  states 
that  the  deanery  and  prebendal  houses  were  now  let 
to  laymen,  “ the  late  members  of  the  church,  if  not 
delinquents,  being  allowed,  in  general,  a third  part  of 
their  former  income  ; and  if  they  had  no  allowance, 
their  wives  were  allowed  a fifth  part  of  it ; the  lower 
members  and  under  officers  were  in  general  paid  the 
whole  of  their  stipends  ; and  .£100  was  allowed  yearly 
to  be  distributed  to  the  poor.”  He  also  adds,  from 
the  same  source  : “ There  appears  during  the  whole 
time  to  have  been  the  psalms  read,  lectures  and 
sermons  preached  in  the  cathedral  and  Sermon-house, 
and  the  sacrament  administered  in  the  former  ; the 
preacher  in  the  cathedral  had  .£150  per  annum,  the 
lecturer  in  the  Sermon-house,  .£100.  The  charges  for 
the  repair  of  the  church  and  precincts  were  not 
spared  ; among  other  articles  I find,  in  1646,  ‘ paid  for 
the  repair  of  the  roof  of  the  church,  .£109.’  In  1647 
a great  repair  was  made  to  the  arch  over  the  body  of 
the  church,  with  much  expense  of  masonry,  &c.,  to 
the  amount  of  £80.  For  repairing  the  upper  windows 
of  the  body,  &c.,  .£16.”  1 This  care  for  the  fabric 
seems  to  have  been  due  to  the  good  offices  of  the 
treasurer-general,  who  after  the  Restoration  petitioned 
the  King  in  regard  to  his  having  ever  favoured  the 
Royalists,  alleging  that  he  had  preserved  the  cathedral 
from  ruin,  that  he  had  secreted  the  church  muniments 
and  plate,  and  restored  them  at  the  Restoration.  In 
1649,  however,  Monins  lost  his  office  through  the 
passing  of  an  ordinance  for  the  sale  of  the  lands  and 
tenements  belonging  to  deans  and  chapters. 

A survey  of  the  houses  within  the  precincts  was  now 
made,  and  those  that  were  held  to  be  redundant  were 
scheduled  for  destruction.  This  document  has  been 
preserved,  and  is  worthy  of  some  attention  for  the 
light  it  throws  upon  the  disposition  of  the  houses  and 
the  accommodation  they  severally  afforded.  The  list 
1 Hasted’s  “ History  of  Kent,”  8vo  ed.  vol.  xi.  p.  349,  note. 

329 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

begins  with  the  preachers’  houses,  and  shows  that  each 
of  the  six  had  a house  within  the  precincts.  One  was 
lodged  in  the  gatehouse  “ leading  from  the  church  to 
the  market  place.”  It  could  not  have  been  a very 
commodious  residence,  for  it  contained  no  more  than 
“ two  rooms  above  stairs,  arched  and  built  of  free- 
stone and  all  covered  with  lead,”  the  rent  being  estimated 
at  fifty  shillings.  Two  preachers  occupied  houses  “ on 
the  south-east  side  of  the  churchyard,  which  probably 
had  once  been  the  lodgings  of  the  chaplains  of  Arundel’s 
chantry.”  The  house  of  the  redoubtable  Richard 
Culmer  is  described  as  “ in  or  near  the  dark-entry  ” 
(doubtless  the  Cheker  building).  This  was  quite  a 
large  house,  with  “ a kitchen  and  buttery  below 
stairs,  a parlour,  and  eight  chambers  with  closets, 
part  whereof  covered  with  lead.”  Another  preacher 
had  a house  “ near  unto  the  Court  Hall,”  consist- 
ing of  a hall,  a parlour,  two  chambers,  and  two 
garrets  ; together  with  “ the  use  of  the  large  stone 
stairs  leading  to  the  said  messuage.”  This  house 
evidently  occupied  part  of  the  monastic  “ North  Hall,” 
and  was  approached  by  the  Norman  staircase.  Another 
preacher  occupied  a little  tenement  on  the  “ north 
side  of  the  Green  Court  adjoining  unto  the  porter’s 
lodge  of  the  north  gate.”  It  contained  only  a hall, 
two  chambers,  and  a closet. 

A great  part  of  the  Dorter,  or  dormitory  of  the 
monks,  was  still  standing,  since  we  learn  that  no  less 
than  six  families  were  lodged  in  it. 

Only  two  houses  allotted  to  minor  canons  are  men- 
tioned. Both  stood  on  the  south  side  of  the  Green 
Court.  Mr.  Lambe’s  is  described  as  “ a very  mean 
house,  consisting  of  a hall,  a parlour,  and  one  room 
over  them.”  Mr.  Jordan’s  had  in  addition  to  the  above 
meagre  accommodation  “ a little  study.” 

Of  the  prebendal  houses,  that  allotted  to  the  fourth 
stall  on  the  north  side  of  the  Green  Court  contained 
a hall,  a parlour,  a kitchen,  a buttery,  a washhouse,  a 

33° 


LAUD  TO  THE  RESTORATION 

cellar,  six  lodging-rooms,  a matted  garret  chamber,  two 
other  garrets,  two  wheat- lofts,  a stable,  and  a hay- loft. 
It  also  had  “ a little  garden  before  the  house,  and  a 
walk  upon  the  city  wall  with  a place  to  dry  clothes  in.” 
The  yearly  value  was  reckoned  at  £6  13s.  4 d . 

Dr.  Jackson’s  house  is  described  as  “ near  to  the 
convent  garden,  abutting  upon  the  house  of  Sir  John 
Fotherby  on  the  south,  and  upon  the  city  wall  east.” 
This  must  have  been  the  house  which  formerly  stood 
in  the  south-east  corner  of  the  “ Oaks.”  It  was 
pulled  down  about  twenty  years  ago,  when  the  present 
modern  house  now  occupied  by  the  Rev.  Canon  Danks 
was  erected  further  north.  This  house  contained  a 
hall,  parlour,  kitchen,  study,  washhouse,  two  butteries, 
three  lodging-chambers  with  a little  closet,  and  four 
garrets  over  them.  It  also  had  “ a garden  planted 
with  fruit  trees,  together  with  one  fair  orchard  called 
ye  common  orchard,  and  a little  building  upon  the 
city  wall.”  Altogether  it  was  estimated  to  be  worth 
£12  a year. 

On  the  south  side  of  the  churchyard  was  a messuage 
“ commonly  called  the  Archdeacon’s  house,”  con- 
taining a hall,  two  parlours,  a kitchen,  two  ground 
chambers,  with  a little  closet  in  one  of  them,  and  four 
chambers,  and  one  closet  above  stairs,  a cellar,  a 
buttery,  a large  courtyard  before  the  house,  a back- 
yard, one  large  garden  planted  with  fruit  trees,  one 
other  garden  planted  with  plum  trees,  wherein  is  a 
great  walnut  tree ; a stable,  a hay-loft,  a straw-house, 
and  a little  yard.  The  estimated  rent  was  .£11  5s., 
and  the  house  was  let  on  lease  to  Thomas  Monins,  the 
late  treasurer-general. 

Many  other  houses  in  the  precincts  are  included 
in  the  schedule,  but  their  position  is  not  stated, 
and  the  above  description  will  be  enough  to 
indicate  the  extent  of  the  accommodation  which 
in  the  seventeenth  century  was  considered  sufficient 
for  the  various  officers  of  the  church.  The  deanery  is 

331 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

not  included  in  the  list,  doubtless  for  the  reason  that 
it  was  considered  too  good  a house  to  pull  down. 

Amongst  the  buildings  more  immediately  attached 
to  the  church  itself  which  were  scheduled  for  destruc- 
tion was  “ the  audit-house,  consisting  of  two  rooms 
and  a closet  on  the  first  floor  and  one  room  on  the 
second  story  ; the  vestry  [treasury],  with  a room  over 
that,  adjoining  the  audit-house,  with  a staircase  to  the 
same  belonging,  and  all  that  fair  staircase  leading 
from  the  cathedral  to  the  library  over  the  dean’s 
chapel,  and  likewise  one  passage  leading  from  the 
cathedral  to  the  Sermon-house,  and  a round  tower 
called  Bell-Jesus,  as  also  the  Cloysters  lying  on  the 
north  side  of  the  cathedral  church.  The  materials  of 
all  which  buildings  to  be  taken  down  (the  same  being 
all  covered  with  lead),  we  estimate  the  worth  to  be 

£451  IS.  8d.” 

Happily,  none  of  the  buildings  mentioned  in  the 
last  paragraph  were  destroyed,  but  curiously  enough 
the  dean’s  chapel  with  the  library  over  it,  which  are 
not  included  in  the  schedule,  were  pulled  down  at  this 
time. 

An  inventory  was  also  taken  of  the  goods  of  the 
church.  By  this  time  very  few  of  its  former  fittings 
and  ornaments  were  left,  but  of  the  meagre  array 
which  remained  the  committee  took  their  toll.  Even 
the  Bible  and  Prayer-book  bought  for  Laud’s  visita- 
tion in  1633  were  carried  off  to  London,  and  the 
brass  eagle  “ formerly  used  in  the  quire  as  a desk  to 
lay  a Bible  on  ” — doubtless  Prior  Goldston’s  ana- 
logium — shared  the  same  fate.  The  Communion  plate, 
consisting  of  two  gilt  flagons,  two  gilt  cups  with  covers, 
one  gilt  cup,  two  little  plates,  two  large  white  plates, 
were  left  in  the  vestry. 

But  Independency  was  now  in  the  ascendant,  and 
the  Burgmote  Book  of  the  city  records  that  “ on  the 
5 th  day  of  the  5th  month  ” the  Congregationalists 
“ did  unanimously  agree  to  break  bread  in  the  Sermon- 
332 


LAUD  TO  THE  RESTORATION 

house,  and  ordered  that  henceforth  it  should  be  there.” 
A fortnight  later  the  Congregationalists  accepted  from 
the  Sequestrators  a loan  of  the  cathedral  plate. 

Henceforward  until  the  Restoration  the  history  of 
the  cathedral  church  is  a blank.  Sermons  were 
preached  every  Lord’s  Day  in  the  chapter-house  by 
Mr.  John  Durant  or  Mr.  Thomas  Player,  two  Inde- 
pendent divines,  both  of  whom  occupied  houses  in 
the  precincts  ; but  the  daily  voice  of  prayer  and 
praise  in  the  choir  was  silent  for  ten  years.  “ Bell- 
Harry  ” no  longer  summoned  the  faithful  to  matins 
and  evensong.  Once  a week  only  was  his  familiar  note 
heard,  and  then  merely  for  the  mundane  purpose  of 
reminding  the  citizens  that  the  mayor  was  going  to 
open  the  market. 

C.  E.  W. 


333 


CHAPTER  XV 


FROM  THE  RESTORATION  TO  THE  CLOSE  OF 
THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

King  Charles  II  landed  at  Dover  on  May  25,  1660, 
fully  determined  that  come  what  might  he  would 
never  again  go  on  his  travels.  Clarendon  tells  us  that 
after  receiving  the  congratulations  of  General  Monk 
and  a loyal  welcome  from  the  townsfolk,  the  King 
“ presently  took  coach,  and  came  that  night  to  Canter- 
bury, where  he  stayed,  the  next  day  being  Sunday,  and 
went  to  his  devotions  to  the  cathedral,  which  he  found 
much  dilapidated  and  out  of  repair,  yet  the  people 
seemed  glad  to  hear  the  Common  Prayer  again.”  1 
One  wonders  who  could  have  officiated  at  this  service, 
since  neither  dean  nor  prebendaries  can  at  this  date 
have  returned  to  their  ruined  houses  in  the  precincts  ; 
indeed,  of  the  latter  only  three  survived  to  see  the 
restoration  of  Church  and  King.  The  vacant  stalls 
were,  however,  quickly  filled  up,  and  within  little 
more  than  three  months  after  the  King  landed  at 
Dover  the  capitular  body  (after  an  interval  of  sixteen 
or  seventeen  years)  were  able  once  more  to  meet  for 
business  in  their  audit-house.  The  task  which  con- 
fronted them  was  an  almost  overwhelming  one.  First 
there  was  a deputation  from  the  old  lay  clerks, 
demanding  the  payment  of  their  salaries  now  many 
years  in  arrears  ; and  then  a long  procession  of  ten- 
ants, clamorous  for  compensation  for  losses  incurred 
during  the  troublous  times.  One  of  the  six-preachers 
put  in  a claim  to  be  paid  for  a sermon  he  had 
1 “History  of  the  Rebellion,”  ed.  1819,  vol.  iii.  pt.  2,  p.  1021. 


334 


CLOSE  OF  EIGHTEENTH  C E N T U RT 

preached  in  the  cathedral  pulpit  on  the  eve  of  the 
Rebellion,  which,  as  he  alleged,  had  been  the  cause 
of  his  incurring  much  personal  suffering  and  some 
pecuniary  loss. 

This  letter  is  so  curious  and  at  the  same  time  so 
illustrative  of  the  sufferings  of  the  loyal  clergy  that 
it  is  worth  quoting  in  full  : 

Being  about  Canterbury  in  those  days  when  the  tide  of  vulgar 
insolencies  ran  very  high  against  the  Church  and  Churchmen,  I was 
earnestly  requested  by  Mr.  Baker  of  worthy  memory  (upon  whom  the 
burthen  at  that  time  lay  very  heavy)  to  ease  him  one  part  of  a fast  day 
by  preaching  in  the  course  of  some  one  or  other  of  the  absent  and  dis- 
possessed members  of  the  metropolitan  church,  and  taking  occasion  in  a 
former  sermon  (according  to  my  duty)  to  inveigh  something  heartily 
against  the  sacrilegious  practices  of  seditious  men,  especially  in  order  to 
the  deplorable  ruins,  and  barbarous  havocks  and  prophanations  then 
newly  committed  upon  the  Body,  and  other  more  sacred  places  of  the 
renowned  Cathedral,  I was  for  that  cause  (as  hundreds  of  witnesses  still 
living  can  attest)  inhumanly  persecuted,  and  daily  hunted  after  and 
taken  at  last  out  of  my  bed  in  the  night  by  armed  men  and  cast  into  the 
common  jayle,  where  I lay  more  than  a good  while  to  my  utter  im- 
poverishing, and  was  forced  at  last  through  the  Puritans’  implacable 
malice  (being  resolved  against  the  Scotch  Covenant)  for  divers  years 
together  to  forsake  ye  county,  the  place  of  my  birth,  and  the  residence 
of  my  mother,  and  other  friends  from  whom  in  those  sad  times  I had 
my  chief  subsistence.  So  that  God  and  the  world  knows  that  the 
breach  then  made  upon  my  poor  fortunes  is  scarce  made  up  unto  this 
day.  Now  the  Revd.  Dr.  aforesaid,  and  afterwards  some  others  of  his 
brethren  now  with  God,  besides  the  copy  of  their  countenance,  and 
the  usual  salary  of  the  church  (yet  unpaid),  were  pleased  to  encourage 
me  with  large  promises  for  the  future.  But  nothing  as  the  times  were 
having  been  ever  performed,  I am  blushing  bold  to  make  this  humble 
address  to  your  worships  (though  my  friends  amongst  you  be  gone,  and 
old  and  suffering  services  forgotten)  that  you  would  vouchsafe  to  take 
into  consideration  (because  I am  but  a mean  casuist  myself)  whether 
in  equity  it  will  not  a little  concern  this  grave  and  learned  assembly 
at  least  to  make  good  the  engagement  and  just  debt  of  your  worthy 
predecessors,  as  the  salary  of  the  church  to  this  day,  I say,  unpaid 
(though  faithfully  promised  both  before  and  after  the  sermon)  will 
amount  unto. 

Though  payment  for  John  Peirce’s  sermon  could 
have  made  no  very  serious  inroads  on  the  church’s 
treasury,  it  was  otherwise  with  the  demands  of  those 

335 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

tenants  who  had  either  been  dispossessed  of  their 
holdings  or  had  purchased  them  from  the  Parliamentary 
Committee.  There  were  some  hard  cases.  The 
lessee  of  the  manor  of  Birchington  complained  bitterly 
of  his  hard  lot  in  having  to  pay  a line  of  one  hundred 
pounds  to  renew  his  lease  after  (to  quote  his  own 
words)  “ having  had  all  the  plagues  of  Egypt  on  me, 
sequestered,  decimated,  put  in  prison,  my  barns  with 
all  the  corn  in  them  burnt.”  But  the  need  of  raising 
money  was  paramount,  and  a like  necessity  has  in 
our  own  day  been  held  to  justify  measures  which 
press  hardly  on  individuals.  Hence  the  Chapter  took 
their  fines,  and  with  the  proceeds  they  were  able 
to  set  about  the  much-needed  restoration  of  the 
cathedral. 

The  lamentable  condition  of  the  great  church  and 
its  surroundings  is  graphically  described  in  a memoran- 
dum drawn  up  by  the  dean  and  chapter,  which  had 
for  its  object  the  refutation  of  “ the  false  aspersion  and 
calumny  ” that  they  had  put  these  fines  into  their  own 
pockets.  After  indignantly  denying  this  aspersion,  the 
memorandum  proceeds  as  follows  : 

But  first,  as  a necessary  premonition,  we  shall  here  recount  and  repre- 
sent the  sad,  forlorn,  and  languishing  condition  of  our  church  at  our 
return,  which  (in  short)  was  such  as  made  it  look  more  like  some  ruined 
monastery  than  a church,  so  little  had  the  late  Reformers  left  remaining 
of  it  but  bare  walls  and  roof,  and  these,  partly  through  neglect  and 
partly  by  daily  assaults  and  batteries  of  the  disaffected,  so  shaken, 
ruinated,  and  defaced  as  it  was  not  more  unserviceable  in  the  way  of  a 
Cathedral  than  justly  scandalous  to  all  who  delight  to  serve  God  in  the 
beauty  of  holiness.  The  windows  (famous  both  for  their  strength  and 
beauty)  so  generally  battered  and  broken  down  as  it  lay  exposed  to  the 
injury  of  all  weathers;  the  whole  roof  with  that  of  the  steeples,  the 
chapter  house,  and  Cloyster  extremely  impaired  and  ruined,  both  in 
the  timber  work  and  lead  ; the  water  tables,  pipes,  and  lead  in  almost 
all  places  cut  off,  and  with  the  leaden  cistern  of  one  of  our  conduits 
purloyned  ; the  Quire  stripped  and  robbed  of  her  fair  and  goodly 
hangings,  her  organ  and  organ-loft ; the  Communion  table  of  the  best 
and  chiefest  of  her  furniture  and  ornaments,  with  the  rail  before  it  and 
the  skreen  of  Tabernacle-work,  richly  overlaid  with  gold  behind  it; 
many  of  the  goodly  monuments  of  the  dead  shamefully  abused,  defaced, 

336 


CLOSE  OF  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURT 

rifled,  and  plundered  of  their  brasses,  iron  grates,  and  barres  ; the 
Common  Dortor  (affording  good  housing  for  many  members  of  that 
church),  with  the  Dean’s  private  chapel,  and  a fair  and  a good  library 
over  it,  quite  demolished,  the  Books  and  other  furniture  of  it  sold 
away ; our  houses  with  those  of  our  Six-Preachers  and  Peti-Canons 
(many  of  them)  much  impaired,  some  by  neglect  of  reparations,  others 
by  mangling  and  parcelling  them  out  into  tenements  ; . . . our  stables 
some  of  them  pulled  down,  others  suffered  to  fall  down,  the  rest 
ruinous  ; our  very  Common  Seal,  our  Registers  and  other  books  together 
with  our  Records  and  evidences  of  all  sorts,  seized  and  distracted,  many 
of  them  irrecoverably  lost,  and  the  rest  not  retrieved  without  much 
trouble  and  cost ; the  goodly  oaks  in  our  common  garden,  of  good  value 
in  themselves  and  in  their  time  very  beneficial  to  our  church  by  their 
. shelter,  quite  eradicated  and  set  to  sale  ; 1 generally  whatever  was  money- 
worth  made  prize  of  and  imbezilled ; and  in  fine  a goodly  brave 
cathedral  become  no  better  (in  respect  of  those  who  got  and  kept  pos- 
session of  it)  than  a den  of  thieves,  and  plunderers,  and  to  make  the  better 
way  for  such  invaders  to  abuse  it,  the  churche’s  guardians,  her  fair  and 
strong  Gates,  betimes  turned  off  their  hooks  and  burned. 

One  of  the  first  acts  of  restoration  was  to  replace  the 
“ churche’s  guardians,”  and  so  well  was  the  work  done 
that  the  gates  then  set  up  have  lasted  to  the  present 
day.  Their  outer  face,  which  is  decorated  with  some 
very  bold  and  vigorous  carving,  bears  the  arms  of 
Archbishop  Juxon,  impaling  those  of  the  see  of  Canter- 
bury ; and  the  arms  of  Christ  Church.  The  excel- 
lence of  the  constructive  work  displayed  on  the  inner 
face  of  the  gates  is  also  worthy  of  attention. 

Within  the  cathedral  the  work  of  restoration  pro- 
ceeded apace.  But  it  would  seem  that  even  before 
much  could  have  been  done  in  the  way  of  fitting  up  the 
choir  the  choral  services  were  resumed  with  all  the  old 
stately  ceremonial,  since  in  the  very  year  that  wit- 
nessed the  King’s  return  minor  canons,  lay  clerks,  and 
choristers  were  in  their  places,  and  in  receipt  of  their 
stipends.  Moreover,  silver  maces  were  purchased  for 

1 Somner,  in  an  unpublished  MS.  in  the  Cathedral  library,  says : 
“ These  oaks  stood  growing  all  on  the  right  hand  or  south  side  of  the 
stone  causey,  at  some  reasonable  distance  from  the  church.”  The  grass 
plot  in  the  south-eastern  corner  of  the  precincts  is  still  called  the  “ Oaks,” 
though  the  trees  which  surround  it  now  are  limes. 

Y 


337 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

the  vergers.1  But  the  provision  of  suitable  ornaments 
and  fittings  was  not  long  delayed.  Four  pieces  of 
“ fine  landskip  hangings  of  silk  lined  with  canvas  were 
purchased  at  a cost  of  ^52  10s.  These  were  used 
probably  to  line  the  walls  on  either  side  of  the  high 
altar.”  2 3 In  1664  a new  screen  of  woodwork  was  set 
up  behind  the  high  altar  in  which  some  portions  of 
the  earlier  mediaeval  screen  seem  to  have  been  in- 
corporated. For  in  spite  of  the  statements  that  the 
latter  was  entirely  destroyed  by  the  Puritans,  it  is 
clear  that  some  part  of  it  was  preserved,  since 
Christopher  Hartover  of  Deptford,  the  craftsman 
employed  upon  the  new  work,  undertook  (in  return 
for  a sum  of  £ 120 ) “ to  make  and  set  up  such  addition 
of  joined  and  carved  work  to  be  wrought  and  done  in 
wainscot  as  are  now  in  any  parts  wanting  to  th t full 
completing  and  perfecting  of  the  screen  now  standing  and 
being  on  the  ascent  at  the  east  end  of  the  quire.”  He 
further  agreed  to  furnish  the  altar  with  a “ front  of 
cloth  to  be  put  into  a comely  frame  of  wood  and  so 
coloured  and  painted,  as  the  same  may  suit  with  and 
supply  the  want  of  the  present  altar  cloth,  or  purple 
front  of  velvet  and  crimson  damask,  now  hanging  and 
used  there.”  In  Dart’s  view  of  the  choir  (published 
in  1726)  Hartover’s  screen  appears  as  a handsome 
erection,  having  a lofty  canopy  or  tester  over  the  altar 
and  a far  more  artistic  production  than  that  which 
replaced  it  in  1732. 

For  use  at  the  altar  itself  a handsome  and  costly 
set  of  plate  was  purchased,  comprising  two  flagons, 
two  alms-dishes,  and  a pair  of  pricket  candlesticks,  all 
of  silver-gilt.  The  candlesticks  are  still  placed  on  the 
re-table,  and  on  the  altar  may  still  be  seen  the  folio 

1 “ Magistro  Smith  aurifabro  London’  pro  duabus  virgis  argenteis  novis 
ponder’  29  uncias,  et  valoris  5s  per  unciam,  preter  3'*  pro  fabricatione 

ad  opus  ecclesie  in  to  to  xu  Vs.”  Treasurer's  Accounts , 1660. 

3 Gostling  mentions  arras  hangings  in  this  position  before  the  erection 
of  the  panelling  in  the  presbytery  in  1732. 

338 


The  Christ  Church  Gate  with  the 
Arms  of  Archbishop  Juxon , 1661 


CLOSE  OF  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

Bible  (resplendent  in  covers  of  silver-gilt)  which  was 
given  to  the  church  at  the  same  time  by  Dean  Turner, 
tradition  says  as  “ a thank-offering  for  deliverance  from  a 
great  danger.”  An  entry  in  the  treasurer’s  accounts 
relating  to  the  purchase  of  “ two  chaffing  dishes  and 
frankincense  ” is  at  first  sight  somewhat  startling. 
But  since  there  is  no  record  of  the  ceremonial  use  of 
incense  in  the  services  of  the  post-Reformation  church 
we  may  conclude  that  the  vessels  were  used  merely  for 
the  purposes  of  fumigation. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  describe  within  reasonable 
limits  all  the  various  repairs  and  acquisitions  made 
during  the  first  decade  after  the  Restoration.  They 
are,  however,  conveniently  summarised  for  us  in  a 
statement  drawn  up  in  1670  for  the  information  of 
Archbishop  Sheldon.  From  this  source  we  learn  that 
by  the  above-mentioned  date  the  Dean  and  Chapter 
had  spent  £7921  on  “ reparations,  utensils,  and  orna- 
ments of  the  church  ” ; .£1000  on  the  repair  of  their 
own  houses  ; .£2880  as  a present  to  the  King  ; on 
the  augmentation  of  poor  benefices  in  their  gift, 
£2209  ; in  increasing  the  stipends  of  the  choir  and 
other  inferior  officers,  £2500  ; towaids  the  redemption 
of  captives,  £340  ; and  on  charity  (in  addition  to  the 
£100  a year  ordered  by  the  statutes),  £1648.  Truly 
a wonderful  record,  and  one  of  which  the  capitular 
body  may  have  felt  justly  proud. 

In  connection  with  the  money  spent  on  the  redemp- 
tion of  captives,  we  must  not  omit  to  notice  the  heroic 
action  of  Dr.  John  Bargrave,  one  of  the  canons,  who 
not  only  collected  the  money,  but  took  it  out  himself 
to  Algiers,  where  at  great  personal  risk  he  bearded  the 
Bey  in  his  own  fortress,  and  brought  back  to  England 
many  of  his  unfortunate  fellow  countrymen  who  had 
been  reduced  to  slavery.  “ I bought  them,”  he  tells 
us  in  one  of  his  letters,  “ slave  by  slave  as  one  buyeth 
horses  at  Smithfield,  but  it  was  a thousand  to  one  that 
I and  my  fellow  commissioner  had  been  made  slaves.” 

341 


Canterbury  cathedral 

By  his  own  wish,  one  of  the  fetters  removed  from  the 
limbs  of  a slave  was  afterwards  placed  over  Bargrave’s 
tomb  in  the  cathedral,  but  this  memorial  of  his  brave 
act  has  long  since  disappeared. 

But  we  must  revert  to  our  description  of  work  done 
to  the  fabric  of  the  cathedral.  In  1675  it  was  decided 
to  line  with  wainscot  Prior  Eastry’s  lateral  choir- 
screens.  The  work  was  entrusted  to  Roger  Davis, 
joiner,  of  London,  who  was  instructed  to  make  the 
design  accord  with  that  of  the  panelling  “ lately  set 
up  in  the  hall  of  the  Mercers’  Company  in  London.” 
It  extended  for  seventy  feet  from  east  to  west,  and  was 
twelve  feet  in  height  above  the  stalls.  The  design 
was  a handsome  one,  as  will  be  seen  by  accompanying 
plate,  and  the  woodwork  no  doubt  not  only  made  the 
choir  warmer,  but  also  improved  its  acoustic  pro- 
perties. It  did  not,  however,  meet  the  taste  of  the 
Gothic  purists  of  the  early  years  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  who  in  consequence  cleared  it  away.1 

The  Dean  and  Chapter  were  so  well  pleased  with 
Davis’s  work  that  seven  years  later  (1682)  they  employed 
him  again,  this  time  to  erect  return  stalls  at  the 
western  end  of  the  choir.  Happily  this  fine  specimen 
of  Caroline  carved  woodwork  has  escaped  the  hand 
of  the  “ restorer,”  though  it  had  a narrow  escape  when 
the  choir  was  reseated  in  1879,  Sir  Gilbert  Scott  being 
in  favour  of  its  removal.  From  the  original  specifica- 
tion (which  is  preserved)  we  learn  that  Davis  con- 
tracted to  place  the  arms  of  the  dean  and  vice-dean 
over  their  respective  stalls ; but  this  was  not  done,  for 
the  arms  of  Archbishop  Sheldon  are  carved  over  the 
former,  and  those  of  Christ  Church  over  the  latter 
stall.  The  cost  was  .£320. 

It  was  at  this  time  probably  that  a picture  of  King 
Charles  I in  oil  colours  was  placed  over  the  central 
doorway  of  the  choir  screen.  This  picture,  which 
represents  the  King  in  the  attitude  of  prayer,  with 
1 During  Dean  Percy’s  “ restorations,”  c.  1 826. 

342 


PANELLING  IN  THE  CHOIR 

Erected  1676 


CLOSE  OF  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

the  crown  (of  martyrdom  ?)  descending  from  the  clouds 
closely  resembles  the  engraving  in  Gauden’s  Eikon 
Basilike , and  was  perhaps  the  source  from  which  the 
latter  was  taken.  The  picture  now  hangs  in  the  library. 

A prospective  visit  from  Queen  Mary  in  1693  caused 
the  Dean  and  Chapter  to  spend  money  upon  refurbish- 
ing the  choir.  And  Widow  More  was  paid  sixpence 
for  “ getting  hearbes  for  the  Queen’s  seat.”  But  their 
efforts  to  please  her  Majesty  were  not  altogether 
successful,  for  the  Queen  when  she  paid  her  visit  to 
the  cathedral  noticed  that  “ the  altar  furniture  was 
dirty.”  Fortunately,  however,  Dean  Hooper  was 
a persona  grata  at  Court,  and  in  order  to  show  her 
r gard  for  him  the  Queen,  shortly  after  her  departure, 
sent  down  to  Canterbury  a page  of  the  backstairs 
with  “ a pane  of  figured  velvet  and  a pane  of  gold 
stuff  flowered  with  silver.”  This  must  have  made 
a very  handsome  covering  for  the  altar,  for  the  material 
cost  no  less  than  five  hundred  pounds. 

Before  describing  the  alterations  made  to  the  fabric 
and  fittings  of  the  church  in  the  eighteenth  century 
a few  remarks  may  be  made  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  church  services  were  conducted  at  this  period. 
From  the  early  years  of  the  eighteenth  century  to 
nearly  its  close  there  was  a weekly  celebration  of  the 
Holy  Communion  in  the  cathedral.  These  were  the 
days  of  the  Test  Act,  and  the  quantity  of  sacramental 
wine  consumed  was  prodigious.  From  the  sacrist’s 
accounts  we  learn  that  the  usual  Sunday  supply  was 
three  quarts,  but  on  the  festivals  of  Christmas  and 
Easter  no  less  than  six  quarts  were  provided.  The 
wine  in  general  use  was  Muskeden , but  occasionally 
Allebent  was  purchased.  About  1790  the  weekly 
celebration  was  given  up  and  a monthly  one  substi- 
tuted, a practice  which  continued  during  the  first 
quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Matins  were 
sung  daily  at  ten  o’clock  until  1684,  when  the 
Chapter,  “ after  great  and  serious  debate  and 

343 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

mature  deliberation,”  ordered  that  henceforth  “ the 
whole  of  the  prayers  and  services  on  the  morn- 
ings of  Sundays  and  holy  days  should  be  'performed 
together  at  nine  of  the  clock.”  Evensong  was  at 
three  o’clock  in  the  summer  and  at  four  o’clock  in 
the  winter,  as  at  present.  Early  prayers,  which  were 
intended  principally  for  the  scholars  of  the  King’s 
school,  were  said  daily  in  the  chapter-house  by  the 
minor  canon  of  the  week,  “ without  note,”  at  six 
o’clock  in  the  summer  and  at  seven  in  winter.  Gostling 
says  that  this  dated  from  King  James  II’s  time,  “ when 
Judge  Jefferies  informed  the  Chapter  that  the  Presby- 
terians had  a petition  before  the  King  and  Council 
representing  this  [the  chapter-house]  as  a place  of 
little  or  no  use,  and  desiring  that  they  might  have  it 
for  their  meeting-house.  The  person  who  was  en- 
trusted with  this  message,  being  a member  of  the  choir, 
proposed  the  making  of  it  a chapel  for  early  prayers. 
. . . ‘ This  will  do,’  says  the  Chancellor.  ‘ Advise 
your  dean  and  prebendaries  from  me  to  have  it  put  to 
that  use  immediately  ; for  if  the  Presbyterians  do  not  get 
it,  perhaps  others  will  whom  you  may  like  worse.’  ” 1 
Sermons  were  still  preached  in  the  chapter-house. 
A curious  description  in  verse  of  the  interior  of  the 
cathedral  (as  it  w'as  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  seven- 
teenth century)  from  the  pen  of  John  Boys,  of  Hode 
Court,2  tells  us  this,  and  also  how  greatly  women 
preponderated  in  the  congregation.  After  describing 
the  cloister,  Boys  goes  on  to  say  : 

To  the  east  quarter  of  the  same  I come 
Where  a fair  folding  door  into  a room 
(A  church  indeed)  doth  me  admittance  lend, 

Which  shall  I first,  the  roof  or  walls,  commend  ? 

Or  rather  the  whole  symmetry  ? but  these 
Dead  ornaments  doe  not  so  truly  please 
As  doe  the  living.  What  a crowd  do  I, 

How  close  a throng  of  people  here  espie  ? 

1 Gostling’s  “Walk,”  ed.  1825,  p.  219. 

* Christ  Church,  Canterbury,  MS.  E.  32. 

344 


CLOSE  OF  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

Men,  women,  children,  gentry,  tradesmen  here, 

All  ages,  sexes,  and  degrees  appear. 

But  when  so  great  and  calm  and  silence  I 
Soe  general  stillness  did  descry, 

Where  of  that  talking  sex  so  many  were, 

For  to  one  man  ten  women  did  appear, 

My  wonder  was  (I  must  confess)  increas’d. 

Presently  he  noticed  that  the  cause  of  their  attention 
was  the  fact  that  an  eloquent  preacher  was  in  the 
pulpit,  and  he  goes  on  to  describe  the  sermon.  When 
he  enters  the  choir,  Boys  tells  us  that  he  first  makes  his 
obeisance  towards  the  altar,  and  then  kneels  down  and 
says  a prayer.  This  done,  he  sits  down  and  is  “ at 
leisure  for  a while  to  view  the  people  and  survey  the 
pile.”  The  following  description,  which  must  refer 
to  a Sunday  morning  congregation,  is  very  quaint  : 

And  first  in  their  formalities  are  seen 
The  learned  prebends  and  the  reverend  dean. 

The  magistrates  I next  observe,  for  here 
The  purple  senate  of  the  town  appear. 

Thrice  blessed  union  when  the  Church  and  State 
The  Word  and  sword  do  thus  concorporate. 

On  th’  other  side,  and  to  them  opposite,1 
The  gentry  have  their  seats,  below  in  white 
The  scholars  clad  fill  their  appointed  place. 

The  multitude  crowd  in  the  middle  space. 

But  shall  we  th’  other  sex  exclude  ? Noe,  they 
Their  stations  also  have  to  talk  and  pray. 

If  Dean  Tillotson  were  the  preacher  when  John  Boys 
made  his  way  to  the  chapter-house,  we  can  understand 
the  spell  his  eloquence  had  over  the  “ talkative  sex,” 
for  Tillotson  was  the  greatest  preacher  of  his  age.  The 
“ learned  prebends  ” did  not  spend  much  time  in  their 
prebendal  houses,  for  they  generally  held  two,  and 
sometimes  three,  benefices  apiece.  Since  there  were 
twelve  of  them,  their  sermons  in  the  cathedral  did  not 
exceed  four  in  the  year,  and  these  were  not  infrequently 
preached  by  substitutes.  Nor  were  their  duties  in  the 
choir  very  onerous  during  their  “ residence,”  for  at 
1 In  the  margin  is  written  44  north  side.” 


345 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

this  date  the  prayers  were  said  by  a minor  canon,  the 
first  lesson  was  read  by  a lay  clerk,  the  second  lesson 
by  a minor  canon,  and  two  lay  clerks  chanted  the 
Litany.  A somewhat  better  state  of  things  prevailed 
in  the  opening  years  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
Indeed,  there  is  just  one  instance  on  record  when  the 
dean  and  all  twelve  prebendaries  were  present  at  a 
service  in  the  choir  at  the  same  time.  The  circum- 
stance was  held  to  be  so  extraordinary  that  the  dean 
and  chapter  caused  the  following  minute  to  be  entered 
in  their  Act  Book:  “ June  28,  1718.  Memd  that 
this  day  Mr.  Dean  and  all  the  prebendaries  were 
present  at  morning  prayer  in  the  Quire  of  this  church. 
Mr.  Dean  began  the  service  ; Mr.  Johnson,  the  minor 
canon,  in  his  course  read  the  first  lesson  ; Dr.  Sydall, 
treasurer,  the  second  lesson  ; and  Dr.  Blomer,  vice- 
Dean,  chanted  the  Litany.”  The  feat  of  the  last- 
named  gentleman  must  have  been  a particularly  rare 
one  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and  has  not  often  been 
attempted  by  any  of  his  successors. 

During  the  eighteenth  century  a good  deal  of  money 
was  spent  one  way  and  another  upon  the  fabric  of  the 
church,  but  it  must  be  confessed  that  much  of  the  work 
was  rather  destructive  than  constructive,  and  that  too 
often  the  alterations  made  were  doubtful  improvements. 

In  1704  the  wooden  shaft  or  spire  which  since  the 
days  of  Prior  Eastry  had  crowned  the  north-west 
steeple  was  reported  to  be  so  much  damaged  by 
the  great  storm  which  in  the  previous  November 
had  wrought  havoc  throughout  the  country,  that  it 
was  taken  down.1  In  the  same  year  the  double  row 
of  ancient  stalls  on  either  side  of  the  choir  was 
replaced  by  pewing.  The  work  was  entrusted  to 
John  Smallwell,  joiner,  of  London,  who,  in  return 
for  the  sum  of  .£300,  agreed  “ to  set  up  two  ranges  of 

1 “ Agreed  with  Thos.  Bullock  and  Thos.  Caister  to  take  down  the 
spire  steeple  and  la y up  the  materials,  and  to  make  the  platform  good 
on  which  the  spire  now  stands.”  Chapter  acts. 

346 


CLOSE  OF  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

pews  of  good  right  wainscott  well  matched,  on  either 
side  of  the  choir,  leading  from  the  deans  and  preben- 
daries5 stalls  up  to  the  archbishop’s  throne  in  the  said 
choir,  with  suitable  benches  before  the  outside  pews 
for  the  choristers  and  King’s  scholars  . . . the  said 
benches  to  be  finished  ao  well  and  in  as  good  workman- 
like manner  as  the  pews  and  benches  are  in  the 
cathedral  of  St.  Paul  in  London.” 

At  the  same  time  Archbishop  Tenison  gave  a new 
archiepiscopal  throne  of  woodwork  having  a lofty 
canopy  supported  by  pillars  of  the  Corinthian  order. 
Dr.  Tenison’s  throne  was  removed  about  a hundred 
and  thirty  years  later  to  make  way  for  the  present 
throne  of  bathstone,  and  was  then  hidden  away  in 
some  storehouse  for  fifty  or  sixty  years.  Within  recent 
memory  the  canopy  has  been  brought  out  again  and 
has  been  set  up  in  the  south-east  transept,  where  it 
now  forms  the  case  of  an  organ. 

In  1718  the  audit-house  was  reported  to  be  both 
incommodious  and  unsafe,  and  was  accordingly  taken 
down  and  rebuilt  in  red  brick.  It  was  a matter  of 
some  importance  to  the  capitular  body  to  have  a 
comfortable  place  in  which  to  transact  their  business, 
for  at  the  Midsummer  and  St.  Katherine’s  audits  their 
sessions — with  short  intervals — often  lasted  for  several 
weeks.  The  purchase  of  a coffee-pot,  cups,  and  a 
sugar-box  for  the  audit-house  leads  us  to  conclude 
that  certain  creature  comforts  were  not  altogether 
denied  to  the  dignitaries  of  the  church  during  these 
long  sittings. 

During  the  next  fourteen  years  no  work  of  any 
importance  was  done  in  or  about  the  church.  But 
in  1729  a legacy  of  .£500  from  Dr.  Grandorge,  one 
of  the  prebendaries,  “ for  making  improvements  in 
the  church,”  became  the  starting-point  of  fresh 
activity.  It  was  decided  that  the  money  should  be 
spent  on  a new  altar-piece  and  on  a wainscot  lining  to 
the  presbytery.  For  the  former  a design  was  supplied 

347 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

by  James  Burrough,  a Fellow  and  afterwards  Master 
of  Gonville  and  Caius  College,  Cambridge,  which  met 
with  approval  and  was  carried  out  in  1733.  Burroughs 
altar-piece  kept  its  place  until  the  alterations  made  at 
the  east  end  of  the  choir  in  Dean  Percy’s  time  (c.  1825). 
As  may  be  seen  from  the  accompanying  plate  taken 
from  Wild’s  view  of  the  choir  published  in  1816,  the 
design  was  of  no  particular  merit,  and  one  wonders 
why  the  new  screen  was  thought  to  be  an  improvement 
on  the  old.  The  latter,  however,  was  not  destroyed, 
but  was  set  up  again  as  a lining  to  the  new  screen.1 

Even  in  the  eighteenth  century  there  were  some 
people  who  liked  the  old  screen  better  than  the  new, 
for  Gostling,  writing  in  1774,  says,  when  describing, 
the  Trinity  Chapel : “ Opposite  to  the  stone  chair  we 
see  the  old  altar-piece,  now  the  lining  of  that  to  which 
it  gave  place  in  the  year  1730.  It  is  handsomely 
adorned  with  painting  and  gilding,  and  of  a design 
which  some  think  more  suitable  to  a Gothic  cathedial 
than  the  new  one.”  But  although  the  design  of  the 
latter  was  poor,  the  work  was  thorough  and  sound  of  its 
kind,  and  cost  a good  deal  of  money.  Thus  the  joiner, 
whose  work  included  the  panelling  of  the  presbytery, 
was  paid  £ 602 , the  carver  £279,  and  the  gilder 
£13  3s.  Nor  was  this  the  whole  of  the  outlay,  for 
very  considerable  sums  were  spent  on  the  furniture 
of  the  altar,  so  that  the  whole  amount  expended  was 
more  than  double  that  of  Dr.  Grandorge’s  legacy — 
surely  a testimony  that  the  custodians  of  the  metro- 
political  church  were  not  altogether  unmindful  of  their 
responsibilities  even  in  an  age  which  is  generally 
associated  with  supineness  and  neglect  in  regard  to 
spiritual  things.2 

1 “ I7 33*  To  the  carpenter  for  work  done  to  the  frame  to  set  the 
old  altar-piece  on,  and  for  putting  up  the  old  altar-piece,  and  for 
47  yards  of  wainscott  done  at  the  old  altar-piece  at  2s.  6d.  per  yard, 
Ls  17s.  6d.”  Treasurer's  Accounts. 

2 “ Bought  of  John  Thompson  and  Thomas  Jenyngs  45  yards  of 
crimson  Genoa  velvet  at  22s.,  £49  10s.  For  12  gold  Topsells  at  17s.  6d. 

348 


THE  CHOIR,  1816 


CLOSE  OF  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURT 

In  1748  an  attempt  was  made  to  give  a more  finished 
appearance  to  the  parapet  of  the  Corona  by  reducing 
to  a uniform  height  the  unfinished  work  of  the 
fifteenth  century.  The  idea  was  to  make  the  openings 
which  were  intended  for  the  windows  of  a higher 
story  look  like  battlements.  But  a bad  matter  was 
only  made  worse,  as  any  one  may  see  to-day.1 

A better  piece  of  work  was  carried  out  three  years 
later,  when  the  gable  of  the  south-east  transept,  which 
had  long  been  in  a dilapidated  condition,  was  rebuilt 
under  the  direction  of  George  Dance  the  elder.  The 
state  of  the  gable  previously  may  be  judged  by  the 
fact  that  for  some  years  it  had  been  faced  with  weather- 
boarding. 

A good  deal  of  decorative  work  was  done  to  the 
interior  of  the  cathedral  in  1766  in  anticipation  of 
Archbishop  Sherlock’s  visitation.  From  the  treasurer’s 
accounts  of  the  year  we  learn  that  the  dean  and 
chapter  spent  .£47  2s.  6d.  on  redecorating  the  font ; 
£22  3s.  on  painting  and  gilding  the  rails  of  the  monu- 
ments ; £\2  13s.  6d.  on  a new  velvet  chair  for  the 
archiepiscopal  throne  ; and  £61  9s.  9d.  for  the  up- 
holstery of  the  throne  and  pulpit. 

Twenty  years  later,  when  Dr.  Horne  was  Dean,  a 
good  many  alterations  were  made,  many  of  them,  it 
must  be  confessed,  of  a destructive  character,  though 
undertaken  with  the  best  of  motives  and  doubtless  at 
the  time  considered  to  be  great  improvements.  Thus, 
when  in  1787  the  nave  was  repaved  with  Portland 
stone,  the  ancient  raised  tombs  of  Archbishops  Islip 
and  Whittlesey  were  removed  and  never  replaced. 
At  the  same  time  the  numerous  ledger  stones,  many 
of  which  bore  the  incised  effigies  of  the  priors  of 

each,  £ 10  10s.  For  13  yards  of  broad  gold  lace  at  8s.  6d.,  and  10  yards 
of  narrow  gold  lace  at  2s.  6d.,  £5  10s.  6d.  For  a large  carpet  containing 
51  pike  great  measure,  at  5s.  6d.,  .£14  os.  6d.”  Treasurer's  Accounts. 

1 The  money  for  this  work  was  provided  by  a retired  naval  captain 
named  Humphrey  Pudner. 


349 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Christ  Church,  and  other  persons  of  distinction,  were 
removed  to  the  chapter-house.  Fortunately,  before 
their  removal  a map  was  made  of  the  floor  of  the  nave, 
with  the  aid  of  which  and  Somner’s  description  of  the 
gravestones  in  the  nave  the  positions  of  many  of  these 
memorials  can  be  determined. 

It  would  seem  that  although  no  use  whatever  was 
made  of  the  nave,  the  one  idea  of  the  dean  and  chapter 
was  to  make  it  as  bare  as  possible  ; for  they  relegated 
Bishop  Warner’s  font  to  the  lavatory  tower,  cleared 
away  the  screen  work  which  enclosed  the  consistory 
court  beneath  the  north-west  tower,1  and  pulled  down 
the  little  chapel  which  Dame  Joan  Brenchly  had 
erected  outside  the  south  aisle. 

Within  the  choir  the  work  of  “ restoration  ” com- 
prised the  sawing  off  of  the  oval  part  of  the  steps 
leading  up  to  the  altar,  the  removal  of  the  brass  eagle 
to  the  library,  and  the  daubing  of  the  walls  and  roof 
with  whitewash.  The  general  effect  produced  by 
Horne’s  “ restorations  ” is  well  described  by  Horace 
Walpole,  who  in  a letter  addressed  to  Miss  Berry 
in  1794  says : “ I wish  you  had  seen  Canterbury 
some  years  before  they  whitewashed  it ; for  it  is 
coarsely  daubed,  and  so  few  tombs  remain  for  so 
vast  a map  that  I was  shocked  at  the  nudity  of  the 
whole.”  2 

Perhaps  when  we  consider  how  entirely  void  the 
age  was  of  sentiment,  we  have  reason  to  be  grateful 
that  the  destruction  of  the  memorials  of  the  past  was  not 
greater.  As  an  illustration  of  the  complete  indifference 
with  which  an  eighteenth-century  bishop  could  speak 
of  the  remains  of  his  saintliest  predecessor  we  will 
conclude  this  chapter  by  giving  an  abridged  account 
of  certain  correspondence  between  Archbishop  Herring 
and  the  Dean  and  Chapter  relative  to  the  relics  of 
St.  Anselm.  In  1753,  hearing  that  the  King  of 

1 The  consistory  court  was  now  removed  to  the  chapter-house. 

2 Walpole’s  “Correspondence,”  vol.  ix.  p.  441. 

350 


The  “ Christ  Church  Gate  ” after 
the  removal  of  the  turrets 


CLOSE  OF  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

Sardinia  was  anxious  to  be  possessed  of  the  relics  of 
the  saint,  Dr.  Herring  wrote  that  he  would  be  glad 
to  exchange  “ the  rotten  remains  of  a rebel  to  his  King, 
a slave  to  the  Popedom,  and  an  enemy  to  the  married 
clergy  for  ease  and  indulgence  to  one  living  Protestant.5’ 
Indeed,  he  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  he  “ would  make 
a conscience  of  palming  on  the  simpletons  any  old 
bishop  with  the  name  of  Anselm.55  In  a subsequent 
letter  he  informed  the  Chapter  that  the  Spanish 
ambassador,  the  Count  Perron,  had  approached  him 
on  the  same  subject,  and  had  intimated  that  if  any 
removal  of  the  relics  should  take  place,  the  Count  must 
be  an  ocular  witness  of  what  was  done.  The  vice-Dean 
(Dr.  Samuel  Schuckford)  in  his  reply  says  that  he 
believes  St.  Anselm’s  shrine,  like  that  of  Becket  and 
Dunstan  and  all  the  other  shrines,  was  destroyed  at  the 
time  of  the  Reformation  ; that  he  has  examined  his 
chapel  and  “ can  find  no  appearance  of  any  tomb  or 
monument  that  can  be  thought  to  concern  him.55 
Moreover,  the  undercroft  was  in  such  a neglected 
state  “ that  it  could  not  be  desirable  to  have  a 
foreign  personage  of  high  character  take  the  offence 
at  our  manner  of  using  it,  which  his  coming  to  have 
an  ocular  inspection  and  examination  of  it  would 
surely  give  to  his  communion.55  And  he  concludes 
his  letter  with  the  following  well-merited  (though 
somewhat  carefully  veiled)  rebuke  to  the  Archbishop  : 
“ Whether  the  searching  for  to  authenticate  one  who 
was  canonised,  had  his  altar,  and  his  day  of  service 
might  not  be  considered  in  a further  view  than  that 
of  looking  for  the  remains  of  an  old  Archbishop  only 
to  be  removed  and  deposited  in  his  native  country.55 1 

C.  E.  W. 

1 Christ  Church,  Canterbury,  MS.  Y.  14,  172 a. 


Z 


353 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE  CATHEDRAL  IN  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY 

During  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  no 
event  of  importance  to  this  history  is  recorded  ; neither 
repair  of  the  structure  nor  break  in  the  routine  of 
cathedral  affairs — the  great  awakening  had  not  begun. 
We  may  therefore  pause  on  the  threshold  of  a new  age 
to  illustrate  what  was  then  permitted  by  public  opinion 
and  the  current  standards  of  clerical  responsibility. 

Of  Archbishop  Manners-Sutton  (1805-28)  a recent 
writer  has  said  that  he  took  an  interest  in  the  National 
Society,  and  that  “ not  less  than  sixteen  rectories, 
vicarages  and  chapelries,  besides  preacherships  and 
dignities  in  cathedrals,  were  shared  among  seven  of 
the  Primate’s  family.  Dean  Percy,  who  had  married 
one  of  his  Grace’s  daughters,  was  portioned  off  with 
preferments  to  the  value  of  .£10,000  a year.  The  Rev. 
James  Croft,  who  obtained  the  hand  of  another 
daughter,  was  Archdeacon  of  Canterbury,  and  held 
in  commendam  the  rich  livings  of  Cliff e-at-Hoo  and 
Saltwood,  as  well  as  the  curacy  of  Hythe.  Others  of 
the  Chapter  were  pretty  well  provided  for.  Doctors 
Russell,  Spry,  Dawson,  and  Manners-Sutton  between 
them  held,  in  addition  to  their  stalls,  the  livings  of 
Marylebone,  Bishopsgate,  Margate,  Wilmington, 
Chislehurst,  Orpington,  All  Hallows  London,  Tunstall, 
Great  Chart  and  Hanbury.”  1 
Of  Dean  Powys  (1797-1809)  the  most  characteristic 
record  is  that  “ he  spent  Lent  in  Canterbury  to  hear 
the  minor  canons  preach.” 

1 “ Chronological  History  of  Canterbury  Cathedral,”  by  G.  S.,  p.  353. 

354 


NINETEENTH  CENTURY 

Some  further  insight  into  the  state  of  affairs  within 
the  precincts  is  afforded  by  the  unpublished  Reminis- 
cences of  the  Rev.  George  Gilbert,  a prebendary  of 
Lincoln,  who  in  early  life  lived  in  the  precincts  at  Can- 
terbury. In  his  gossiping  pages  Mr.  Gilbert  tells  us 
that  Dr.  Welfitt  was  chaplain  to  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  regarded  this  post  as  a claim  for  cathedral  prefer- 
ment. He  made  elaborate  (and  financial)  arrange- 
ments with  the  physician  of  a dying  prebendary  for 
the  earliest  news  of  his  demise.  By  some  mishap  the 
tidings  arrived  three  days  late  after  all.  He  therefore 
promptly  saddled  his  horse  and  rode  eighty  miles 
without  halting,  saw  Lord  North,  and  secured  the 
stall.  “ Do  you  not  think,”  said  he  to  Allen  Fielding, 
then  vicar  of  St.  Stephen’s,  “ that  after  such  a day’s 
labour  I deserved  a stall  ? ” “ I am  sure  your  horse 

did,”  was  the  witty  reply.  Whatever  his  deserts,  he 
was  prebendary  for  forty-seven  years,  resided  nine 
months  in  every  year,  and  attended  service  twice 
daily  ; indeed,  there  was  one  year,  shortly  before  his 
death,  in  which  he  missed  only  one  service. 

Prebendary  John  Peel,  the  brother  of  the  great 
statesman,  is  remembered  as  an  impressive  and  eloquent 
preacher  and  a benefactor  to  the  cathedral.  In  1834 
the  cloister  was  much  decayed,  and  by  a generous  gift 
of  a thousand  pounds  he  enabled  the  Chapter  to 
execute  the  needful  repairs. 

Dr.  Nelson,  a brother  of  the  naval  hero,  occupied 
the  fifth  stall  from  1803  to  1838,  and  is  described  as 
“ a rough  man,  fitted  to  be  a country  squire,  rather 
short  and  stout,  who  wore  a long  black  frock  coat 
nearly  to  his  ankles,  Hessian  boots,  and  a large 
shovel  hat.”  There  is  a scandalous  tradition  that  he 
occasionally  took  a newspaper  into  his  stall  at  week- 
day services,  and  being  very  deaf  was  unaware  that 
others  could  hear  the  folding  or  unfolding  of  it.  “ For 
some  days,”  says  Mr.  Gilbert,  “ before  the  battle 
of  Trafalgar  he  went  regularly  at  eight  o’clock  to 

355 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Bristow’s  reading-room  in  the  Parade  for  the  earliest 
news  of  Lord  Nelson  and  the  fleet.  When  the  sad, 
glad  news  arrived,  Bristow  hastened  to  the  cathedral 
yard  to  meet  Dr.  Nelson,  that  he  might  be  prevented 
from  learning  in  a public  newsroom  of  his  brother’s 
death.  He  was  much  affected,  and  returned  to  his 
house  shedding  tears.”  Lady  Emma  Hamilton  occa- 
sionally visited  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Nelson  in  the  Brickwalk  ; 
but  it  was  not  easy  to  get  ladies  to  call  upon  or  meet 
her.  Mrs.  Bridges  (the  mother  of  Sir  Egerton  and 
Sir  John)  had,  however,  no  such  scruples.  “ Lady 
Emma  and  Mrs.  Bridges  sang  an  anthem  in  the  choir 
one  day  after  service,  a few  persons  being  present. 
The  anthem  was  Kent’s  6 My  song  shall  be  of  mercy 
and  judgment.’  The  singing  was  very  fine,  for  the 
compass  of  Lady  Hamilton’s  voice  was  surprising. 
Dean  Powys  was  present  near  the  entrance  to  the 
presbytery.  ‘ Shall  I sing  an  anthem  for  the  benefit 
of  the  County  Hospital  ? ’ shouted  her  ladyship.  The 
Dean,  affecting  deafness,  returned  no  answer,  and  her 
ladyship  understood  him.” 

Of  Dr.  Luxmore,  another  prebendary  of  Christ 
Church,  who  became  Dean  of  Gloucester  and  used  to 
send  for  “ auld  lang  syne  ” a present  of  potted 
lampreys  for  the  audit  dinners,  Mr.  Gilbert 
writes  : 

I saw  a letter  from  him  to  Dean  Powys  in  which  he  earnestly  deprecated 
the  removal  of  the  two  turrets  from  the  great  gate  of  the  churchyard. 
It  was  unavailing.  The  true  story  of  their  removal  is  this.  My  father 
was  one  day  in  the  bank  of  Simmons  and  Gipps  at  the  corner  of  St. 
Margaret  Street ; Alderman  Simmons  and  Jesse  White  (then  cathedral 
surveyor)  were  present.  The  exact  time  of  day  was  asked  by  the 
Alderman,  who  said,  “ If  those  turrets  of  the  cathedral  gate  were  away 
we  should  see  the  church  clock  from  the  bank  door.  Can’t  you  pull 
them  down,  Jesse  ? ” “ It  shall  be  done,”  replied  Jesse ; and  it  was 
done.  They  were  reported  to  be  insecure  and  too  heavy  for  the  gate, 
and  down  they  came.  Jesse  White  put  up  the  wooden  pinnacles  to  the 
nave  of  the  cathedral.  The  plea  was  economy,  yet  wood  was  then  as 
dear  as  stone.  He  was  clever  as  a surveyor,  and  a man  of  substance  in 
body  and  in  pocket. 

356 


The  Nave 


NINETEENTH  CENTURY 

Gilbert  tells  us  that  in  his  early  days 

the  dean  and  canons  entered  the  choir,  except  when  the  archbishop 
was  present,  by  the  west  door.  The  dean  led  the  way  and  entered  his 
stall  first ; the  canons  on  his  side  passed  round  to  their  seats  by  the 
south  entrance  to  the  stalls.  The  canons  on  the  vice-dean’s  side  entered 
juniores  prior es,  the  vice-dean  and  senior  waiting  for  them.  No  canon 
on  leaving  his  stall  passed  the  dean ; each  went  out  to  pulpit  or  altar 
the  other  way.  Not  so  on  the  vice-dean’s  side,  whose  seat  rises  on 
hinges  so  that  he  may  be  passed. 

The  junior  canon,  unless  preacher,  usually  took  the  ante-communion 
office  on  Sundays,  with  a minor  canon.  But  I observed  that  when  we 
had  a new  canon,  Dr.  Welfitt  generally  went  to  the  altar.  His  object 
was  to  show  the  newcomer  that  it  was  needful  to  turn  and  bow  reverently 
versus  stallum  decani , as  the  statutes  say.  Why  is  this  done  ? It  is,  as 
it  were,  to  ask  the  superior’s  permission  and  blessing,  given  by  the  return 
bow,  before  proceeding  to  the  office. 

When  the  archbishop  preached,  the  dean  and  vice-dean  took  the 
office,  and  then  conducted  the  archbishop  to  the  pulpit.  There  was  a 
bad  custom  for  the  celebrants  (sic)  to  leave  the  altar  and  go  to  their  stalls 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Nicene  Creed.  At  the  visitation  of  Archbishop 
Manners-Sutton  the  Dean  and  vice-Dean  came  down  and  stood  bowing 
opposite  the  throne,  ready  to  conduct  his  Grace  to  the  pulpit.  The 
verger  opened  the  door,  but  the  Archbishop  took  no  notice,  keeping  his 
eyes  fixed  on  his  book.  At  the  end  of  the  Creed  he  looked  up,  acknow- 
ledged their  salute,  and  went  with  them  to  the  pulpit.  Dean  Andrews 
took  the  reproof  nobly,  and  determined  to  make  an  end  of  a bad  custom. 
“ For,”  said  he,  “ I never  felt  a rebuke  so  keenly  in  my  life.  It  was  a 
just  rebuke  and  admirably  administered.  I was  quite  ashamed  of  myself 
as  I stood  there  before  the  congregation  convicted  of  a great  fault.” 

Dean  Percy’s  tenure  of  office,  from  1825  to  1827, 
in  spite  of  its  brevity,  brought  changes  of  importance. 
Of  the  four  annual  fairs  held  in  the  precincts  during 
the  Middle  Ages,  the  only  one  surviving  was  that  at 
Michaelmas.  This  was  permitted  for  the  last  time  in 
1826,  and  by  its  removal  to  the  Cattle  Market  lost 
much  of  its  mediaeval  aspect  and  association. 

In  the  fabric  itself  perhaps  the  most  important 
change  was  that  made  in  the  position  of  the  altar. 
The  heavy  oak  reredos  which  had  been  erected  by 
Burrough  in  1732  was  now  taken  down,  and  the 
altar  was  moved  back  to  the  top  of  the  flight  of  steps 
leading  to  St.  Augustine’s  chair.  The  patriarchal 

359 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

seat,  which  had  retained  its  primitive  position  through- 
out all  the  changes  and  chances  of  at  least  seven 
centuries  and  possibly  much  longer,  was  relegated  to 
the  south-east  transept. 

Behind  the  altar  a light  stone  screen  with  panels 
of  glass  was  set  up,  which  Mr.  Beresford  Hope  called 
“ the  specimen  in  confectionary  Perpendicular  which 
the  late  Mr.  Austin  inflicted  on  Canterbury.’’  But 
although  the  work  was  poor  enough  from  the  archi- 
tectural point  of  view,  the  screen  had  this  merit,  that 
it  did  not  shut  out  the  fine  vista  of  the  Trinity  Chapel 
behind  it. 

Ten  years  later,  in  1836,  the  wainscot  panelling 
which  concealed  Eastry’s  lateral  choir-screens  was 
removed  and  the  latter  repaired  and  glazed.  This, 
from  some  points  of  view,  was  a doubtful  improve- 
ment, for  the  seventeenth-century  woodwork  was 
excellent  in  its  way ; but  happily  the  elaborately 
carved  return  stalls  at  the  west  end  of  the  choir  were 
spared,  and  much  of  the  rest  is  still  stored  away  in  the 
precincts. 

The  rebuilding  of  the  north-western  or  Arundel 
tower  was  also  undertaken  about  this  period.  In 
1824  the  tower  was  thought  to  be  in  a dangerous 
condition,  and  the  Chapter  called  in  Mr.  Thomas 
Hopper,  a London  architect,  to  report  upon  it.  The 
report  is  worth  quoting  at  some  length,  not  only 
because  it  gives  a specific  account  of  the  state  of 
Lanfranc’s  work  after  a lapse  of  eight  centuries,  but 
also  as  showing  that  in  the  judgment  of  an  expert  it 
was  capable  and  worthy  of  preservation  : 

The  foundations  are  sound,  so  also  are  the  inner  ashlar  and  pillars. 
The  external  ashlar,  excepting  the  part  above  the  top  water  table,  is 
flawed  in  many  places  and  the  surface  is  nearly  gone.  The  rubble  work, 
composing  the  core,  is  very  defective,  and  split  in  many  parts.  The 
projecting  angle  of  the  tower  is  cracked  in  several  places,  and  many  of 
the  stones  are  crushed.  The  upper  part  of  the  Tower  is  split  on  each 
of  its  four  sides,  and  the  angle  next  to  the  side  aisle  is  not  perpendicular. 
The  outer  wall  on  the  sides  has  several  cracks  and  the  columns  and  jambs 

360 


NINETEENTH  CENTURT 

of  the  windows  are  crushed.  Part  of  the  staircase  is  broken  by  the 
settlement  in  the  outer  wall.  Many  of  the  steps  have  fallen,  and 
several  more  are  in  a crippled  state.  . . . The  wall  on  the  west  side  has 
been  much  injured  by  the  iron  tie-bar.  . . . Much  of  the  present 
defective  state  of  the  tower  is  owing  to  the  manner  in  which  it  was 
built.  The  core  is  composed  of  small  stones  mixed  with  bad  lime  and 
rubbish,  without  binding  stones  or  through  courses.  . . . Injury  has 
been  done  to  the  tower  by  the  introduction  of  the  pointed  arches. 
A sufficient  substance  of  wall  was  not  left  at  the  angles  to  form  a butment 
to  resist  the  pressure  of  the  arches,  and  the  effect  of  that  deficiency  has 
been  increased  by  the  removal  of  the  spire,  the  weight  of  which  pressing 
upon  the  angles  of  the  tower  acts  as  a butment  for  that  purpose.  . . . 

The  surveyor  then  mentions  various  repairs  which 
would  in  his  opinion  render  the  tower  safe  for  many 
years,  and  concludes  thus  ; 

Under  all  circumstances,  the  surveyors  do  not  recommend  the  taking 
down  of  the  tower,  which,  notwithstanding  its  defects,  is  an  interesting 
relic  of  the  most  ancient  style  of  ecclesiastical  architecture. 

Mr.  Hopper,  in  his  respect  for  antiquity  seems  to 
have  been  in  advance  of  his  time,  and  it  must  be  a 
matter  for  regret  now  that  his  advice  was  not  followed. 
Nothing,  however,  was  done  for  some  years,  but  in 
1831  the  Dean  and  Chapter  decided  to  pull  down  the 
old  tower  and  rebuild  it  from  the  foundations.  For 
this  purpose  an  Act  of  Parliament  was  obtained,  by 
which  the  Dean  and  Chapter  were  empowered  to  raise 
£20,000  by  mortgage  on  their  estates,  with  power  to 
^raise  a further  sum  of  .£5000  if  required  ; the  money 
to  be  paid  off  by  annual  instalments  in  forty  years. 
It  was  found  necessary  to  raise  the  extra  £5000,  and 
the  total  cost  of  the  tower  was  .£24,515,  of  which  sum 
the  expenses  of  obtaining  the  Act  of  Parliament 
amounted  to  .£733,  and  the  cost  of  pulling  down  the 
old  tower  to  £6oj.  The  new  work  was  designed  and 
executed  by  George  Austin,  surveyor  and  architect 
to  the  dean  and  chapter,  and  the  foundations  were  so 
well  laid  that  it  has  never  shown  any  sign  of  a settle- 
ment ; but  the  Caen  stone  of  which  it  is  built  has 
become  so  much  disintegrated,  either  because  it  was 

361 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

imperfectly  “ weathered  ” after  removal  from  the 
quarry  or  through  exposure  to  the  fumes  of  the 
Cathedral  Gasworks,  which  for  many  years  were  placed 
near  the  foot  of  the  tower,  that  in  little  more  than 
seventy  years  it  has  been  found  necessary  to  give  the 
tower  practically  a new  skin. 

It  is  worthy  of  mention  that  “ in  excavating  for  the 
foundations  of  the  new  tower  the  ground  was  found 
to  be  boggy,  and  piles  had  to  be  driven  in.  Whilst  the 
men  were  digging  they  came  across  the  skeletons  of  a 
man  and  two  oxen,  all  of  which  were  in  an  upright 
position.  If  we  imagine  that  the  man  was  an  early 
Briton  driving  the  bullocks,  and  was  swamped  in 
trying  to  cross  the  bog  or  to  extricate  the  animals,  we 
shall  probably  be  somewhere  near  the  truth.”  1 

While  the  rebuilding  of  the  Arundel  tower  was  in 
progress  and  a new  epoch  in  the  administration  of 
cathedral  revenues  was  at  hand,  events  were  hap- 
pening which  boded  ill  for  the  Church  of  England. 
In  1832  Archbishop  Howley  was  mobbed  in  the 
streets  of  Canterbury  on  account  of  his  opposition 
in  the  House  of  Lords  to  the  great  Reform  Bill ; 
for  the  days  of  democratic  bishops  were  not  yet.  The 
crowd  was  numerous  and  violent  and  the  Primate  had 
a narrow  escape  of  being  dragged  from  his  carriage. 
But  thanks  to  the  courage  of  a magistrate  and  the 
adroitness  of  his  Grace’s  coachman  and  footman,  the 
deanery  was  reached  in  safety.  In  1833  the  flight  of 
white  veined  marble  steps  and  the  black-and-white 
marble  pavement  in  the  presbytery,  which  had  been 
given  in  1732  by  Dorothea  Nixon  and  her  nephew, 
were  superseded  by  the  existing  French  black  marble. 
The  repair  of  the  cloister  (with  somewhat  inferior 
stone)  was  completed  in  1834,  and  a mural  tablet  in 
the  north  alley  inscribed  with  a record  of  Dr.  Peel’s 
generosity.  In  1840  the  cemetery  gate,  sometimes 

1 “Chronological  History  of  Canterbury,”  by  G.  S.,  Canterbury  1883, 
P-  351- 
362 


THE  CATHEDRAL  FROM  THE  “ OAKS 

Showing  the  Cemetery  Gate  and  Wall,  removed  in  1840 


I 


NINETEENTH  CENTURY 

called  the  sanctuary  gate,  together  with  the  embattled 
wall  which  stretched  from  the  south-west  corner  of 
St.  Anselm’s  chapel  to  the  old  plumbery,  and  was 
formerly  the  boundary  between  the  burial-ground  of 
the  monks  (to  the  east)  and  that  of  the  lay  folk  (to  the 
west),  was  taken  down.  The  gateway  was  re-erected 
in  its  present  position  as  the  entrance  to  the  bowling 
green.1 

In  1844  the  throne  given  by  Archbishop  Tenison 
in  1704  with  its  massive  oaken  columns  and  Renaissance 
carvings  was  removed  to  the  south-east  transept  and 
replaced  by  Archbishop  Howley’s  gift  of  stone  taber- 
nacle work  designed  by  George  Austin.  The  change 
was  in  harmony  with  the  prevalent  notion  that  only 
gothic  design  should  be  permitted  in  a gothic  building  ; 
but  whether  it  was  an  improvement  is  perhaps  open  to 
debate. 

In  1846  the  present  unpretentious  stone  pulpit  in 
the  choir  was  erected  from  the  plans  of  Mr.  Butter- 
field. 

In  1848  Archbishop  Howley  died,  and  was  buried 
in  Addington  churchyard  ; but  a cenotaph  with  his 
recumbent  effigy  was  placed  on  the  north  side  of  the 
presbytery  between  the  tombs  of  Archbishops  Chicheley 
and  Bourchier.  Part  of  Prior  Pastry’s  screen  was 
removed  to  make  room  for  this  monument,  and  in 
1872  was  re-erected  at  the  entrance  to  St.  Andrew’s 
Chapel.  The  new  Primate,  John  Bird  Sumner,  was 
the  first  Archbishop  who  had  been  enthroned,  ex- 
cepting by  proxy,  for  a hundred  and  thirty- three  years, 
and  for  this  reason  the  ceremony  calls  for  special 
notice.  It  was  justly  felt  to  be  the  beginning  of  a 
new  order  of  things,  and  though  the  day  was  cold  and 
wet  the  crowd  of  worshippers  and  spectators  was  too 

1 In  mediaeval  times  the  following  parishes  had  a right  to  bury  in 
Christ  Churchyard  : St.  Michael  Burgate,  St.  Mary  Queningate,  St. 
Mary  Bredman,  and  St.  Alphege  also  the  inmates  of  St.  Thomas’s 
Hospital  at  Eastbridge. 

363 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

great  for  even  the  great  spaces  of  the  cathedral.  One 
is  tempted  to  compare  it  with  the  account  of  Arch- 
bishop Manners-Sutton’s  enthronement  as  given  by 
Prebendary  Gilbert  in  his  Reminiscences.  “ It  took 
place,”  he  says,  “ in  1805.  Dr.  Wilson  was  proxy  for 
the  Archbishop-elect,  Dr.  Wellfitt  for  Archdeacon 
Radcliffe,  and  Dr.  Walesby  and  Minor  Canon  Freeman 
for  the  Dean  and  Chapter.”  It  was  an  affair  of  proxies 
altogether,  and  must  have  been  a singularly  unimpres- 
sive ceremonial.  Gilbert  tells  us  that  “ the  patri- 
archal chair  then  stood  in  Becket’s  Crown.  The 
members  of  the  choir  proceeded  by  the  north  and 
south  aisles  to  the  spot,  from  which  the  congregation 
were  excluded.  Many  rushed  up  to  the  altar  and 
gazed  through  the  window  in  the  screen  (see  Plate 
on  p.  348),  and  kept  their  places  there  (that  is, 
behind  and  about  the  holy  table)  when,  the  procession 
having  returned,  the  service  was  resumed.” 

We  have  ranged  rapidly  over  the  events  great  and 
small  of  the  first  half  of  the  century,  and  purposely 
held  in  reserve  what  was  in  some  respects  the  most 
momentous  of  them  all.  In  1836  there  came  into 
being  by  Act  of  Parliament  the  Ecclesiastical  Commis- 
sion, which  by  its  efficient  administration  of  Church 
revenues  and  its  influence  with  the  Legislature  has 
wrought  . such  marvellous  reforms.  Prince-bishops, 
“ golden  stalls,”  scandalous  pluralities,  wholesale 
nepotism  have  fled  before  its  face,  and  for  three- 
quarters  of  a century  the  poor  and  crowded  parishes 
have  been  nourished  by  resources  which  were  formerly 
shared  among  the  friends  of  the  politically  or  socially 
great.  At  Canterbury  the  number  of  prebendaries 
was  reduced  as  vacancies  occurred  from  twelve  to  six, 
and  large  appropriations  were  made  from  the  property 
both  of  the  Chapter  and  of  the  See  towards  the  needs 
of  the  Church  elsewhere.  The  annual  income  of  the 
cathedral  for  all  purposes,  on  an  average  for  the  three 
years  ending  November  24,  1831,  was  returned  to  the 

364 


NINETEEENTH  CENTURY 

Commissioners  as  £21,551.  It  must  occasionally  have 
been  larger  than  this,  for  .£29,000  had  been  recently 
expended  in  repairs,  exclusive  of  provision  for  the 
interest  and  repayment  of  the  ^25,000  expended  in 
rebuilding  the  north-west  tower.  The  Commis- 
sioners in  their  final  arrangement  left  to  the  Chapter 
estates  estimated  to  yield  .£17,500  a year  for  the  total 
upkeep  of  the  cathedral  and  staff,  appropriating  the 
surplus  to  their  general  fund.  Of  this  something  will 
be  said  hereafter. 

The  reduction  in  the  number  of  prebendaries,  or 
canons  as  they  are  now  usually  termed,  led  to  some 
beneficial  changes  in  the  aspect  of  the  precincts. 
Where  twelve  residences  had  been  required,  only  six 
became  necessary,  and  the  least  desirable  of  those 
which  had  been  constructed  among  and  out  of  the 
monastic  buildings  were  demolished.  Thus,  the 
houses  near  the  east  end  of  the  cathedral,  and 
south  of  what  was  called  the  “ Brick-walk,”  were 
pulled  down  together  with  the  boundary  wall  which 
enclosed  the  corona,  and  the  south  arcade  of  the 
infirmary  and  infirmary  chapel  exposed  to  view.  When, 
however,  we  delight  in  this  line  of  picturesque 
arches  with  their  suggestions  of  the  middle  age  and 
grudge  their  long  burial  in  commonplace  masonry, 
let  us  bear  in  mind  that  but  for  the  mean  use  they 
happened  to  serve  they  would  almost  certainly  have 
been  destroyed  as  “ superfluous  buildings.” 

In  Dean  Lyall’s  time  (1845-57)  much  work  was 
done  on  the  exterior  of  the  cathedral.  Mention  has 
been  made  of  Jesse  White,  who  was  surveyor  in  the 
early  part  of  the  century,  and  who  procured  the 
destruction  of  the  turrets  of  the  Christ  Church  gate. 
If  he  had  lived  to  the  age  of  Methuselah,  it  is  con- 
ceivable that  our  descendants  would  have  had  a 
wooden  cathedral.  He  had  already  provided  wooden 
pinnacles  to  the  nave,  wooden  frames  for  several  of 
the  windows,  and  a wooden  gable  to  the  north-east 

365 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

transept.  All  this  rubbish  was  replaced  by  stone  (not 
always  of  the  best  quality)  ; the  cracked  bells  in 
the  Oxford  steeple,  which  for  many  years  had  been 
silent  for  fear  of  danger  to  the  adjoining  old  Norman 
tower,  were  recast  and  rehung  and  a new  clock  fixed 
in  connection  with  them. 

Dean  Lyall  died  in  1857,  anc^  the  advent  of  Dean 
Alford  was  the  signal  for  a series  of  changes  not  only 
in  the  fabric  and  precincts,  but  also  in  the  relation  of 
the  cathedral  to  the  religious  needs  of  the  city  and  of 
the  Church  at  large.  Hitherto  there  had  been  only 
one  sermon  on  Sunday,  and  always  in  the  morning. 
The  dean  had  preached  three  times  in  the  year. 
There  was  no  evening  service  until  it  was  instituted 
many  years  later  by  Dean  Payne  Smith.  Alford’s 
first  reform  was  an  afternoon  sermon.  Chapters  are 
proverbially  conservative,  and  the  innovation  was  so 
strongly  opposed  that  the  Dean  carried  his  point  only 
by  undertaking  to  be  the  preacher — a promise  faith- 
fully performed,  sometimes  at  the  cost  of  inopportune 
journeys  and  fatigues.  The  public  responded  with 
great  congregations,  and  thus  began  that  improved 
relationship  between  cathedral  and  city  which  since 
those  days  has,  we  believe,  become  cordial. 

In  1862  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners  granted  a 
sum  of  .£20,000  towards  the  reparation  of  the  fabric, 
and  associated  their  architect,  Mr.  Christian,  with 
Mr.  H.  G.  Austin,  the  cathedral  surveyor,  in  the 
superintendence  of  the  work.  The  Dean  and  his 
architects  set  to  work  with  much  energy  and  the  best 
intentions  on  “ the  choir  roof  and  the  south-western 
tower  with  a portion  of  the  west  front  ” ; but  it  is 
to  be  feared  that  the  mantle  of  the  mediaeval  builders 
had  not  fallen  even  on  this  galaxy  of  virtue  and  ability. 
Having  enriched  their  restored  tower  with  much  third- 
rate  statuary  by  Theodore  Pfyffers,  a Belgian  sculptor, 
and  having  decided  to  light  the  cathedral  with  gas, 
they  planted  their  gasworks  close  under  the  west  front, 
366 


NINETEENTH  CENTURT 

providing  in  this  way  corrosive  fumes  to  injure  the 
new  work  on  both  towers,  while  not  omitting  a con- 
stant offence  to  sight  and  smelh  Happily,  the  gas- 
works disappeared  nearly  thirty  years  ago,  and  the 
decay  of  structure  resulting  from  them  and  from  the 
use  of  a poor  quality  of  stone  is  being  carefully  and,  as 
we  hope,  permanently  remedied  at  the  present  time 
under  the  superintendence  of  Mr.  Caroe,  F.S.A., 
architect  to  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners  and  to 
the  Dean  and  Chapter  of  Canterbury. 

Mention  may  be  made  of  other  works  executed  under 
the  indefatigable  Dean  Alford.  The  King’s  School 
buildings  in  the  Mint  Yard,1  with  a new  gateway  and 
porter’s  lodge  at  the  entrance  from  Northgate ; the 
removal  of  the  ceiling  in  St.  Andrew’s  Chapel ; the 
restoration  of  the  south  staircase  turret  ; the  building 
of  a parapet  (borrowed  as  to  pattern  from  Lincoln 
Cathedral)  along  the  eaves  of  the  choir  roof,  on  the 
south  side  ; the  conversion  of  the  old  Brewhouse  in 
the  Green  Court  into  a choristers’  school ; the  sub- 
stitution of  the  present  stone  stairway  (copied  from 
the  pulpit  stairs  in  Chester  Cathedral)  for  a wooden 
one  from  the  infirmary  cloister  to  the  north  transept  ; 
and  finally  the  new  library,  of  which  we  give  a descrip- 
tion elsewhere. 

One  records  not  without  regret  that  the  Cheker 
building,  which  in  the  later  stages  of  its  career  had 
Terved  as  a school  for  the  choristers,  was  pulled  down 
in  1868 — one  more  fragment  of  the  Middle  Age  lost 
to  us  and  to  posterity  ! 

Although  Alford  did  not  always  show  artistic  judg- 
ment in  dealing  with  the  fabric,  he  was  nevertheless  a 
great  dean,  of  immense  and  beneficent  activity  as 
writer,  preacher,  and  man  of  affairs,  zealous  for  the 
spiritual  influence  of  his  great  church,  and  full  of 
tolerance  and  kindliness.  He  died  in  1871,  and  over 

1 For  an  account  of  the  new  buildings  for  the  King’s  School  see  the 
“ History  of  the  King’s  School,”  by  Woodruff  and  Cape,  London,  1908. 

367 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

his  grave  in  St.  Martin’s  churchyard  are  these  words 
written:  by  himself  : Diversorium  viatoris  Hierosoly - 
man  froficiscentis  (The  resting-place  of  a traveller  on 
his  way  to  Jerusalem). 

Robert  Payne  Smith  was  dean  for  twenty-four  years 
(1871-95)  ; Frederic  W.  Farrar  for  eight  (1895-1903)  ; 
and  it  is  now  nine  since  the  accession  of  Dean  Wace. 
During  this  time  an  increasing  zeal  for  the  fabric  and 
services  of  the  church  has  wrought  great  changes ; 
the  momentum  given  by  Alford  has  grown  with  the 
years. 

•r 

In  1879  t^Le  Pews  which  dated  from  the  days  of 
Queen  Anne  were  removed  from  the  choir  to  make 
way  for  the  existing  stalls,  which  were  designed  by 
Sir  Gilbert  Scott.  The  new  stalls  cost  .£8000,  and 
although  open  to  criticism,  they  are  undoubtedly 
an  improvement  on  the  old  pewing.  At  the  same 
time,  or  a little  later,  a new  altar  was  erected, 
of  dignified  proportions.  The  panels  of  mosaic  work 
which  decorate  the  front  were  made  in  Venice  after 
figures  by  Fra  Angelico,  and  were  the  gift  of  the  Rev. 
George  Pearson,  an  honorary  canon.  The  retable  is 
of  stalagmite  and  alabaster,  inlaid  with  rare  marbles. 

In  1883  an  ancient  folio  Bible  from  the  library  was 
placed  upon  the  wooden  desk  in  the  north  choir  aisle. 
The  making  of  this  desk  in  1541  is  recorded  in  the 
cathedral  archives.  It  was  here  that  “ Cranmer’s 
Bible,”  the  Bible  of  “ the  largest  volume,”  was  placed 
by  royal  injunction  in  the  above  year.  It  has  been 
conjectured  that  the  recess  in  which  the  deok  is  placed 
was  intended  to  serve  for  the  Easter  sepulchre.  But 
as  there  is  another  such  recess  at  the  west  end  of  the 
same  aisle,  it  seems  more  likely  that  both  formerly 
contained  presses  in  which  the  service  books  were 
kept  in  monastic  times. 

To  Dean  Payne  Smith  belongs  the  credit  of  having 
established  the  Sunday  evening  service  and  sermon, 
which  have  been  much  appreciated  by  the  citizens. 
368 


NINETEENTH  CENTURT 

Twice,  however,  in  his  time  the  cathedral  narrowly 
escaped  irretrievable  disaster.  In  1872  the  upsetting 
of  a plumber’s  brasier  of  burning  charcoal  set  fire  to 
the  roof  of  the  Trinity  Chapel ; for  an  hour  and  a half 
no  water  was  available,  and  the  entire  roof  east  of  the 
chapels  of  St.  Anselm  and  St.  Andrew  was  destroyed. 
Happily  the  stone  vaulting  stood  firm,  and  though 
molten  lead  rained  through  some  of  its  crevices,  the 
interior  took  no  great  harm.  At  length  by  the  aid  of 
eighty  troopers  from  the  barracks,  the  local  volunteer 
fire  brigade  under  Captain  W.  G.  Pidduck,  and  the 
hose  of  the  Phoenix  Insurance  Office,  the  fire  was 
subdued.  Honourable  mention  should  be  made  of 
Mr.  George  Delasaux,  who  at  great  risk  broke  through 
one  of  the  clerestory  windows  and  brought  water 
effectually  to  bear  on  the  flames.  His  act  was  a fine 
instance  of  the  repayment  by  a descendant  of  French 
refugees  of  the  debt  of  his  ancestors. 

In  1876,  when  the  clock  in  the  Oxford  steeple  was 
being  cleaned,  and  the  benzoline  used  for  the  purpose 
was  brought  too  near  a lighted  lamp,  the  adjacent 
woodwork  took  fire.  It  was  extinguished  by  the 
presence  of  mind  of  one  of  the  cathedral  workmen, 
who  tore  down  the  clock-case  and  so  prevented  the 
spread  of  the  flames ; but  two  lives  were  lost  in  this 
unfortunate  affair. 

A mistake  of  judgment  may  occasionally  do  more 
permanent  harm  than  a great  fire.  It  was  during  Dean 
Payne  Smith’s  tenure  of  office  that  the  Ecclesiastical 
Commissioners  offered  to  take  over  all  cathedral  estates, 
guaranteeing  in  return  an  annual  income  adequate  to 
the  upkeep  of  the  cathedrals  and  the  payment  of  all 
the  officials.  The  Canterbury  Chapter  was  one  of 
those  which  declined  the  proposal,  and  which  there- 
fore suffered  severely  by  the  subsequent  fall  in  rents 
and  in  the  value  of  tithe.  Since  the  stipends  of  minor 
canons,  lay  clerks  and  lesser  officials  could  not  reason- 
ably be  reduced,  the  whole  brunt  of  the  loss  therefore 

2 A 369 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

fell  on  the  members  of  the  chapter,  whose  incomes  at 
one  time  decreased  by  nearly  one  half,  and  on  the 
provision  for  the  upkeep  of  the  fabric  of  the  church. 
The  able  and  economical  administration  of  cathedral 
affairs  initiated  by  the  late  seneschal,  Colonel  Dicken- 
son, did  much  to  retrieve  the  financial  position  ; but 
for  some  twenty  years  the  dean  and  canons  have 
foregone  a considerable  part  of  their  incomes  in 
order  to  provide  for  the  maintenance  of  the  buildings 
and  services.  In  addition  to  this,  all  fees  for  show- 
ing the  cathedral  have,  after  payment  of  the  neces- 
sary guides,  been  allotted  to  the  fabric  fund;  but 
although  the  amount  of  money  received  from  this 
source  is  considerable,  it  would  have  been  quite  in- 
sufficient for  the  general  upkeep  had  not  outside  aid 
been  invoked  from  time  to  time.  Thus  Dean  Farrar 
raised  by  voluntary  contributions  nearly  £20,000 
With  Sir  Arthur  Blomfield  as  his  architect  he  restored 
the  crypt  and  the  chapter  house,  repaired  the  cloisters, 
and,  at  a cost  of  £ 700 , erected  new  altar-rails  of  early 
Renaissance  design  in  massive  brasswork  on  a plinth  of 
black  Belgian  marble.  The  restored  chapter  house 
was  declared  open  on  the  morning  of  May  29,  1897, 
by  the  Prince  of  Wales,  afterwards  King  Edward  VII ; 
and  in  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day  Sir  Henry  Irving 
read  there  to  a crowded  audience  Tennyson’s  drama 
Becket . 

The  national  character  of  the  response  to  Dean 
Farrar’s  appeal  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  Queen 
Victoria,  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners,  and  three 
Premiers  or  ex-Premiers  were  among  the  contributors. 
Since  1903  Dean  Wace  has  added  to  the  Reparation 
Fund  no  less  than  .£27,000  from  all  parts  of  the  country, 
and  has  rendered  to  the  fabric  the  most  important  and 
judicious  service  it  has  received  since  the  Reformation. 
With  Mr.  Caroe  as  the  successor  of  Sir  Arthur  Blom- 
field, he  has  secured,  we  trust,  for  coming  generations 
the  magnificent  central  tower.  The  north-western 

37° 


NINETEENTH  CENTURY 

tower  has  been  treated  in  similar  fashion,  and  the 
Oxford  steeple  is  now  (1912)  undergoing  repair.  The 
hard  and  durable  Doulting  stone  has  been  used  for 
replacement  where  decay  has  made  necessary  the 
removal  of  any  of  the  old  Caen  blocks.  About  .£15,000 
has  been  spent  on  Bell  Harry  and  .£9000  on  the 
Arundel  tower. 

The  elevation  of  Dr.  Temple  to  the  primacy  brought 
about  further  changes.  It  had  long  been  felt  that  it 
was  an  anomalous  thing  that  the  archbishop  should 
have  no  place  of  residence  in  his  cathedral  city. 
Archbishop  Temple’s  first  care  on  his  accession  in  1896 
was  to  provide  a home  for  himself  and  his  successors 
close  to  the  cathedral  and  therefore  at  the  centre  of 
diocesan  organisation  and  activity.  The  sale  of  Adding- 
ton Palace  produced  funds  ; Mr.  Caroe  was  the 
architect.  The  house,  in  which  every  available  scrap 
of  the  previous  ruin  is  incorporated,  contains  a chapel 
and  the  great  reception  rooms  for  diocesan  and  other 
gatherings.  It  occupies  the  site,  though  not  the 
whole  site,  of  the  former  palace  rebuilt  by  Archbishop 
Parker,  and  communicates,  as  in  Becket’s  days,  with 
the  north-west  corner  of  the  cloister  by  the  doorway 
through  which  he  went  to  his  death.  The  “ Old 
Palace,”  as  the  new  one  is  called,  is  an  admirable 
piece  of  work,  excellently  done,  and  perhaps  we  may 
be  allowed  to  add  most  hospitably  used. 

The  architect  and  the  mason  during  these  busy 
years  were  seconded  by  the  goldsmith,  the  brass- 
founder,  the  embroiderer  and  the  decorator.  As  far 
back  as  1887  Canon  Rawlinson  had  presented  (at 
the  time  anonymously)  a silver-gilt  altar  cross  elabo- 
rately jewelled  ; and  a little  later  he  gave  the  two 
great  brass  candelabra  which  stand  in  front  of  the 
holy  table  on  either  side.  To  these  he  added  in 
1898  a magnificent  chalice  and  paten,  the  former  set 
with  diamonds,  opals  and  amethysts,  and  embossed 
with  symbolical  figures. 


371 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 


Cardinal  Morton,  towards  the  end  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  gave  to  Christ  Church  a sumptuous  herse- 


The  “ Old  Palace  ” 


cloth  or  funeral  pall,  which  disappeared  in  the  sub- 
sequent pillage.  This  was  replaced  in  1899  by  one 
scarcely  less  splendid,  the  gift  of  fifty-four  ladies  of 
Kent,  to  whom  Oxford  University  lent  as  pattern  a 
possibly  unique  example  at  least  three  hundred  years 

372 


Archbishop  JuxorCs  Gates  {inner  face) 


NINETEENTH  CENTURY 

old.  A complete  set  of  Eucharistic  vestments  exactly 
copied  from  those  at  Sens,  reputed  to  have  belonged  to 
Becket,  was  an  anonymous  gift  in  the  same  year,  of  the 
estimated  value  of  £ 300 . Among  other  freewill  offer- 
ings of  what  was  once  called  “ vestry  stuff  ” are  the 
beautiful  altar-frontals  and  super-frontals  given  by 
Mrs.  Rawlinson  and  a company  of  ladies. 

In  1898  a very  handsome  pulpit  of  carved  oak  was 
erected  in  the  nave  as  a memorial  to  Dean  Payne 
Smith.  The  design,  which  was  furnished  by  Mr. 
Bodley,  has  met  with  general  approval,  and  by  some 
competent  judges  the  pulpit  has  been  pronounced  to 
be  the  finest  work  of  its  kind  executed  since  the 
Reformation.  Unfortunately,  the  acoustic  properties 
of  the  nave  are  not  such  as  to  encourage  the  preaching 
of  sermons  there  ; but  at  Canterbury  there  is  less  need 
than  elsewhere  to  utilise  the  nave  for  special  services, 
since  the  accommodation  afforded  in  the  choir  is 
exceptionally  large. 

The  scope  of  our  book  does  not  allow  us  to  give 
more  than  a passing  reference  to  the  men  who  beyond 
others  have  made  the  name  of  Canterbury  once  more 
a household  word  throughout  the  English-speaking 
world.  It  must  suffice  here  to  say  that  during  the 
last  half-century  the  see  has  been  filled  by  a succession 
of  great  and  devoted  archbishops,  and  their  influence 
and  leadership  have  been  felt  not  only  by  the  church 
and  nation  at  home  but  by  the  whole  Anglican  com- 
munion. Tait  lies  in  effigy  in  the  north  choir  transept ; 
the  effigies  of  Benson  and  Temple  are  likewise  in  the 
cathedral,  though  divided  by  the  whole  length  of  it, 
and  they  both  sleep  in  cathedral  ground,  one  in  the 
nave  and  the  other  in  the  cloister  garth.1  At  their 

1 Until  Dr.  Benson  was  laid  to  rest  beneath  the  north-western  tower 
in  1896  no  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  had  been  buried  in  his  cathedral 
church  since  Cardinal  Pole  was  interred  in  the  corona.  Of  the  sixty- 
seven  pre-Reformation  Archbishops,  eleven  were  buried  at  St.  Augus- 
tine’s, forty-six  in  Canterbury  Cathedral,  and  one  in  each  of  the 
following  churches : Abingdon,  Jumieges,  Winchester,  Bath  and  St. 

375 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

enthronement,  if  they  did  not  come  with  troops  of 
mounted  men,  as  in  the  great  days  of  old,  to  be  met 
by  the  knights  and  esquires  and  city  fathers  three  miles 
from  the  city,  at  least  it  was  not  as  in  the  eighteenth 
century,  a half-hearted  affair  of  proxies.  They  were 
welcomed  and  prayed  for  by  thousands,  and  hearts 
are  better  than  horsemen.  When  they  died  they  were 
mourned  as  leaders  and  fathers  of  their  flock.  Their 
lives  are  a part,  and  no  inglorious  part,  of  the  history 
of  their  country.  The  fifth  Lambeth  Conference  in 
1908,  when  two  hundred  bishops  from  all  parts  of 
the  world  met  for  worship  in  Canterbury  Cathedral, 
is  some  measure  of  the  progress  of  the  church,  of  the 
work  of  its  primates,  and  of  the  feeling  entertained 
at  home  and  overseas  towards  the  ancient  cathedral. 

The  nineteenth  century  at  Canterbury  was  marked 
by  none  of  the  violent  changes  and  tragic  episodes  of 
the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  ; yet  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  these  earlier  periods  witnessed  developments 
more  remarkable.  From  vandalism  and  destructive 
ignorance  to  the  loving  care  and  study  of  all  ancient 
work  ; from  nepotism  and  scandalous  pluralities  to  a 
conscientious  exercise  of  patronage  ; from  slack  and 
(it  is  to  be  feared)  slovenly  observance  to  the  full  tide 
of  ordered  prayer  and  praise  ; from  neglect  of  the 
fabric  to  a zealous  if  not  always  judicious  regard 
for  both  its  outward  and  inward  glories  ; from  an 
official  lethargy  bordering  on  paralysis  to  the  labour 
and  sacrifice  which  have  made  the  cathedral  a centre 
of  life  not  only  for  the  city,  the  diocese  and  the  country, 
but  for  the  whole  Anglican  communion — these  are 
indeed  great  changes,  and  they  belong  chiefly  to  the 
nineteenth  century. 

W.  D. 

Gemma.  One  (Baldwin)  died  in  the  Holy  Land,  and  one  (Cranmer) 
was  burnt  at  Oxford. 


376 


CHAPTER  XVII 

THE  LIBRARY 

Canterbury  in  the  Middle  Ages  possessed  two  collec- 
tions of  books  which  in  extent  and  general  importance 
could  scarcely  be  rivalled  in  any  other  English  city. 
These,  of  course,  were  housed  respectively  in  the 
cathedral  library  of  Christ  Church  and  in  that  attached 
to  the  abbey  of  St.  Augustine.  Traditionally  the 
origin  of  both  is  associated  with  the  name  of  Arch- 
bishop Theodore ; 1 and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  learned  Greek  Archbishop  brought  books  with 
him  into  England.  Archbishop  Parker  believed  that  he 
was  the  happy  possessor  of  certain  works  which  Theo- 
dore brought  to  Canterbury  ; notably  of  a Homer 
upon  the  first  leaf  of  which  the  name  Theodore 
does  actually  occur  in  large  gold  letters.  The  book 
is  now  preserved  in  the  library  of  Corpus  Christi 
College,  Cambridge,  to  which  society  Parker  be- 
queathed the  volume  (together  with  the  rest  of  his 
books),  believing  it  to  be  one  of  the  'primitive  of  the 
cathedral  library.  Unfortunately  this  opinion  can  no 
longer  be  maintained  ; indeed,  it  is  somewhat  sur- 
prising that  it  could  ever  have  been  current,  since  the 
character  of  the  script  gives  clear  proof  that  the  book 
was  written  in  the  fifteenth  instead  of  the  seventh 
century,  and  the  name  is  therefore  merely  that  of  a 
former  possessor. 

Of  the  extent  of  the  library  of  Christ  Church  during 

1 Twyne  in  his  tract  entitled  De  rebus  Albionicis , published  in  1590, 
refers  to  the  library  of  Christ  Church  as  “ ipsa  celeberrima  bibliotheca 
a Theodoro  instituta,”  p.  114. 


3 77 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Anglo-Saxon  times  little  is  known.  What  notices 
there  are  refer  to  the  gifts  of  kings  : thus,  Athelstan 
gives  the  Gospels  of  Mac-Durnan,  and  Canute  a 
splendid  copy  of  the  Gospels.  These  royal  gifts  were 
service  books  ; but  doubtless  there  were  others,  since 
in  the  earliest  extant  lists  the  titles  of  a good  many 
books  in  the  vernacular  occur,  some  of  which  may  have 
been  acquired  before  the  Conquest.  But  whatever 
may  have  been  the  extent  of  the  library  in  Anglo- 
Saxon  times,  much  loss  must  have  been  suffered  by 
the  disastrous  fire  of  1067,  even  if  we  accept  with  some 
reserve  Eadmer’s  statement  that  the  devouring  flames 
made  nearly  a clean  sweep  of  the  books  “ whether 
sacred  or  profane.”  Thus  it  would  seem  that  the 
mediaeval  library,  like  so  much  else  at  Christ  Church, 
dates  from  the  days  of  Lanfranc,  who  was  not  only  a 
donor  of  books,  but  also  a framer  of  rules  for  their  use. 
These  rules  are  contained  in  the  Archbishop’s  Constitu- 
tions, and  are  worth  quoting  at  length  : 

“ On  monday  before  the  first  Sunday  in  Lent,  before 
the  brethren  come  into  the  chapter  house,  the 
librarian  shall  have  a carpet  laid  down,  and  all  books 
got  together  upon  it,  except  those  which  a year 
previously  had  been  assigned  for  reading.  These  the 
brethren  are  to  bring  with  them  when  they  come  to 
the  chapter  house,  each  his  book  in  his  hand.  . . . 
Then  the  librarian  shall  read  a statement  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  brethren  have  had  books  during  the 
past  year.  As  each  brother  hears  his  name  pronounced 
he  is  to  give  back  the  book  which  has  been  en- 
trusted to  his  reading,  and  he  whose  conscience  accuses 
him  of  not  having  read  the  book  through  which 
he  had  received  is  to  fall  on  his  face,  confess  his 
fault,  and  entreat  forgiveness.  . . . The  librarian 
shall  then  make  a fresh  distribution  of  the  books, 
namely,  a different  volume  to  each  brother  for  his 
reading.” 

The  earliest  extant  list  of  books  in  the  library  of 

378 


THE  LIBRARY 

Christ  Church  was  discovered  by  Dr.  Montagu 
James  in  the  University  Library  at  Cambridge,  at 
the  end  of  a twelfth-century  copy  of  the  Music  and 
Arithmetic  of  Boethius.1  This  list  contains  223  entries, 
but  is  only  a fragment,  and  Dr.  James  estimates  that 
there  were  from  600  to  700  volumes  in  the  presses. 
The  earliest  complete  catalogue  which  has  come  down 
to  us  is  now  preserved  amongst  the  Cottonian  MSS. 
in  the  British  Museum  (Galba  iv).  It  was  compiled  in 
the  time  of  Prior  Henry  of  Eastry  (1284-1331),  and 
enumerates  1831  volumes,  containing  4157  treatises. 
An  examination  of  this  list  shows  that  although 
theology  and  canon  law  are  the  strongest  sections,  the 
library  was  strong  in  classics  and  respectably  furnished 
with  books  on  science  and  history. 

Out  of  the  whole  collection,  Dr.  James  has  been 
able  to  identify  182  volumes  as  still  existing  in  various 
libraries.  But,  alas  ! only  six  remain  upon  the  shelves 
at  Canterbury.  The  question  now  arises,  where  was 
this  extensive  collection  of  books  housed  ? The  late 
Mr.  J.  W.  Clarke — a great  authority  on  mediaeval 
libraries — in  an  article  contributed  to  the  journal  of 
the  Cambridge  Antiquarian  Society,2  says  : “ So  far 
as  my  researches  have  yet  proceeded,  I conceive  that 
presses  in  the  cloister  were  found  sufficiently  large  to 
contain  most  monastic  libraries  until  the  end  of  the 
fourteenth  or  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  centuries.” 
But  there  is  evidence  that  Christ  Church  possessed  a 
separate  apartment  or  Bibliotheca  at  a much  earlier 
date.  This  evidence  is  contained  in  a memorandum 
in  one  of  the  monastic  registers 3 made  when  Eastry 
was  prior,  to  the  effect  that  an  allowance  of  a loaf  of 
“ monks’  bread  ” and  half  a gallon  of  small  beer  should 
be  given  to  the  sacrist’s  servant  whenever  he  carried 
books  from  the  library  ( de  libraria)  to  the  chapter 

1 7 he  Ancient  Libraries  of  Canterbury  and  Dover , M.  R.  James, 
Cambridge,  1903. 

2 Vol.  viii.  p.  360.  3 Register  J.  f.  514. 


379 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

house  for  the  annual  inspection  {ad  monstrandum ). 
The  position  of  this  library  is  uncertain,  but  Mr. 
St.  John  Hope  has  suggested  that  it  may  have  been 
situated  at  the  east  end  of  the  slype  or  narrow  passage 
berween  the  church  and  the  chapter  house  ; and  he 
points  out  that  the  two  recesses  in  the  wall  of  the 
latter  building — which  have  only  been  filled  up  in 
modern  times — may  have  contained  presses  for  books.1 
At  Worcester,  also  a Benedictine  foundation,  there 
are  two  similar  recesses  which  have  also  been  described 
as  armaria  for  storing  books,2 

In  the  circumstance  that  the  duty  of  fetching  the 
books  was  entrusted  to  a servant  of  the  sacrist  we  may 
perhaps  trace  a survival  from  the  time  when  the 
monastery  possessed  few  books  besides  those  used  in 
the  services  of  the  church ; since  service-books — 
except  those  in  daily  use — would  be  kept  in  the  sacrist’s 
house. 

An  account  of  one  of  the  annual  inspections 
of  books,  taken  in  1337,  when  Richard  Oxenden 
was  prior,  is  to  be  found  in  Register  I.  f.  104.  It 
appears  that  the  privilege  of  borrowing  was  not  con- 
fined to  the  monks  but  was  extended  to  Canterbury 
students  at  Oxford,  and  also  to  secular  persons.  Thus, 
among  the  defaulters  in  1337  is  the  name  of  the 
unfortunate  monarch  Edward  II,  who  had  been  dead 
for  ten  years.  He  had  borrowed  from  Christ  Church 
the  Miracles  of  St.  Thomas,  his  Life  and  that  of 
St.  Anselm,  and  the  books,  apparently,  were  never 
returned. 

Wherever  the  old  library  may  have  been  situated,  a 
new  one  was  built  by  Archbishop  Chicheley  in  the 
fifteenth  century  over  the  prior’s  chapel.  It  must 
have  been  nearly  finished  in  1444,  since  in  that  year 
one  Richard  Salkyer,  a London  glazier,  was  paid 

1 Inventories  of  Christ  Church , Canterbury. 

2 “ Mediaeval  Libraries,”  T.  W.  Williams.  Bristol  Antiquarian  Society1 s 
Transactions,  vol.  xxix.  p.  209,  p.  144. 

380 


THE  LIBRARY 

76s.  8d.  for  glazing  the  windows.1  About  1475 
Prior  Sellinge  added  an  ornamental  ceiling  and  furni- 
ture. Thirty- three  years  later  (1508)  brother  William 
Ingram  made  a careful  review  of  the  books  in  order  to 
ascertain  their  condition.  He  has  left  a detailed  record 
of  his  proceedings,  from  which  source  we  learn  that  he 
went  round  the  room  shelf  by  shelf  noting  the  volumes 
which  required  new  “ bynding,”  “ bordyng,”  or 
“ chenyng.”  From  the  fact  that  the  titles  of  the 
defective  volumes  (libri  debiles)  fill  fifteen  columns  of 
his  notebook  some  idea  may  be  formed  of  the  extent 
of  the  whole  collection.2  From  the  particulars  con- 
tained in  this  memorandum  Mr.  J.  W.  Clarke  was 
able  to  reconstruct  the  general  arrangement  of  the 
presses,  shelves  and  benches.  There  were,  he  tells  us, 
two  rows  of  eight  presses,  each  having  two  shelves, 
placed  at  right  angles  to  the  walls,  with  their  accom- 
panying benches  and  desks  for  readers.  This  arrange- 
ment still  exists  in  the  ancient  library  of  Merton 
College,  Oxford,  which  was  fitted  up  by  William  Read, 
bishop  of  Chichester,  in  the  second  half  of  the 
fourteenth  century. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  prior’s  chapel  over 
which  Chicheley’s  library  was  built  occupied  precisely 
the  same  site  as  the  room  which  at  the  present  day 
contains  the  Howley-Harrison  collection  of  books,  and 
jthat  therefore  the  library  above  it  had  exactly  the 
same  floor  space  as  that  apartment.  Access  to  the 
library  was  obtained  by  means  of  a narrow  staircase  in 
a gallery  outside  the  passage  leading  from  the  lavatory 
tower  to  the  transept  of  the  church.  This  staircase, 
which  ascended  northwards  to  a door  in  the  south- 
west corner  of  the  library,  has  long  since  been  pulled 
down,  but  is  plainly  shown  in  the  plan  drawn  for 
Dugdale’s  Monasticon . 

For  the  upkeep  of  the  library  the  prior  and  convent 
held  estates  in  land  and  tithe.  Thus  the  rectory  of 

1 Treasurers’  Accounts,  sub  anno.  2 Christ  Church  MSS.  C.  xi.  (3). 

381 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Halstow,  near  Sittingbourne,  was  granted  to  the  monks 
of  Christ  Church  by  Archbishop  Hubert  Walter  in 
order  that  the  profits  of  the  benefice  might  be  devoted 
“ to  the  emendation  and  repair  of  the  books  of  their 
library,  reserving  to  the  vicar  of  the  parish  an 
annual  stipend  of  five  marks.”  A further  endowment 
was  a small  estate  called  Crumbesfield,  which  was 
conveyed  to  the  priory  by  Alfred  de  Gare  in  1230.1 
In  Benedictine  foundations  the  care  of  the  books 
was  part  of  the  duties  of  the  precentor.  This 
officer  does  not  come  very  prominently  into  view  in 
the  archives  of  Christ  Church,  but  from  the  custumal 
of  St.  Augustine’s  Abbey  we  learn  that  he  and  his 
deputy,  the  succentor,  were  to  have  each  his  desk  in 
the  cloister  near  the  book  presses,  and  that  they  were 
to  be  ready  at  all  times  to  give  assistance  to  readers. 

Whether  the  Scriptorium  or  writing-room  where 
books  were  copied  and  ornamented  at  Christ  Church 
was  in  the  cloister  or  elsewhere  is  uncertain,  since  the 
records  say  nothing  about  the  matter.  If  this  highly 
skilled  work  were  done  in  the  cloister,  the  western  alley 
would  have  been  the  most  eligible,  since  the  southern 
one  appears  to  have  been  frequented  by  the  novices 
whose  marks  and  diagrams  cut  upon  the  stone  bench 
for  their  games  with  marbles  may  still  be  seen  ; and 
the  eastern  and  western  alleys  were  much  used  as 
thoroughfares.  Whenever  the  Scriptorium  was  in  the 
cloister  the  arrangement  was  as  follows  : at  each  end 
of  the  alley  a screen  was  placed  for  greater  privacy. 
Along  the  inner  wall  were  fixed  oak  cupboards  with 
strong  locks  and  hinges  to  receive  the  books  ; and  on 
the  outer  side  was  a row  of  little  wooden  box-like 
rooms,  called  carrels , each  of  which  was  devoted  to  the 
use  of  one  scribe.  Two  of  these  carrels  probably  went  to 
each  bay  or  compartment  of  the  cloister.  They  were 
commonly  made  of  wainscot  oak,  about  six  feet  by 
eight  feet  in  plan,  or  even  less — just  big  enough  to 
1 Chart#  Antiques,  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,  H.  91  and  C.  1262. 
382 


T HE  LIBRARY 

hold  the  seated  scribe  and  his  large  desk  on  which 
rested  the  manuscript  he  was  copying  and  the  one  he 
was  writing,  with  some  extra  shelf-space  for  his  black 
and  red  ink  horns,  his  colours  and  other  implements. 
In  the  twelfth  century  and  earlier  the  monastic 
Scriptorium  of  Christ  Church  was  famous,  and  its 
productions  rivalled  those  of  Winchester  and  St. 
Albans.  Eadwin’s  English  copy  of  the  Utrecht 
Psalter  preserved  in  the  library  of  Trinity  College, 
Cambridge,  and  Herbert  of  Bosham’s  commentary  on 
the  Psalms,  in  the  Bodleian,  are  both  splendid  speci- 
mens of  the  skill  of  the  Canterbury  scribes.  But  it  is 
doubtful  whether  any  of  the  volumes  which  are  still 
on  the  shelves  of  the  cathedral  library  were  actually 
written  in  the  Canterbury  Scriptorium , though  about  a 
score  certainly  once  belonged  to  Christ  Church  monks. 

Amongst  the  treasures  once  possessed  but  not 
produced  by  the  Monks  of  Christ  Church,  we  may 
mention  the  so-called  Psalter  of  St.  Augustine, 
now  amongst  the  Cottonian  MSS.  in  the  British 
Museum  (Vespasian  A.i),  which  for  many  centuries 
belonged  to  Christ  Church,  Canterbury.  It  was 
written  in  the  eighth  century,  and  the  ornamentation 
is  apparently  by  two  hands,  the  figures  being  painted 
by  an  Italian  illuminator,  and  the  borders  by  an  English 
or  Irish  monk.  Another  magnificent  book  which  was 
once  in  the  library  of  Christ  Church  is  the  Codex 
Aureus , now  preserved  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Stock- 
holm. This  is  a book  of  the  Gospels,  written  on 
alternate  leaves  of  purple  vellum,  the  text  on  which  is 
of  golden  letters.  It  was  written  in  the  eighth  century, 
and  both  in  general  style  and  in  the  splendour  of  its 
ornaments  it  closely  resembles  the  Lindisfarne  Gospels 
of  St.  Cuthbert.2  A note  on  the  margin  of  the  first 
page  of  St.  Matthew’s  Gospel  records  that  the  book 
was  stolen  by  Norse  pirates,  and  that  Alfred,  an 

1 Illuminated  MSS.  T.  W.  Middleton,  Cambridge  1892. 

2 Middleton,  op.  cit. 


383 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

English  ealdorman,  purchased  it  about  the  year  850, 
in  order  to  rescue  it  from  pagan  hands,  and  that  he 
then  presented  it  to  the  cathedral  church  of  Canter- 
bury, The  Gospels  of  MacDurna,  now  in  the  archi- 
episcopal  library  at  Lambeth,  is  another  celebrated 
book  which  was  for  many  centuries  in  the  cathedral 
library  at  Canterbury,  though  not  a product  of  the 
Christ  Church  Scriptorium . 

It  would  seem  that  the  Canterbury  school  of  scribes 
and  illuminators  declined  at  a comparatively  early 
date,  since  very  few  books  written  later  than  the 
second  half  of  the  thirteenth  century  bear  the  marks 
which  palaeographers  have  associated  with  the  work 
of  Canterbury  scribes.  Probably  the  wealth  of  the 
convent  and  the  fact  that  a large  number  of  books  were 
required  led  to  the  employment  of  those  professional 
artists  who  in  the  early  years  of  the  thirteenth  century 
were  already  beginning  to  form  themselves  into  guilds 
and  to  ply  for  custom  at  the  doors  of  the  various 
religious  houses.  By  the  rules  of  these  guilds  a high 
standard  of  technical  skill  was  exacted  from  the 
members,  but  from  professional  scribes  and  illumi- 
nators the  same  perfection  of  treatment  could  not  be 
expected  as  from  men  who,  labouring  for  the  glory 
of  God  or  the  reputation  of  their  monastery,  could 
devote  years  of  patient  toil  to  one  book,  and  found 
in  their  work  the  chief  joy  and  relaxation  of  their 
lives.1 

Unfortunately,  the  Canterbury  archives  do  not 
throw  any  light  upon  the  Scriptorium  until  towards 
the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century,  when  we  do  get  a 
few  particulars  relating  to  the  production  of  books. 
Thus,  when  Thomas  Goldston  II.  was  prior  (1494- 
1517)  the  convent  paid  no  less  than  £60  6s.  8d.  for  the 
transcription  of  a book  called  Rationale  Divinorum . 
This  was  done  by  a professional  scribe  ; but  at  about 
the  same  date  the  ornamentation  of  a large  choir  book, 
1 Middleton,  op.  cit.  p.  141. 


384 


THE  CATHEDRAL  FROM  THE  STOUR  VALLEY 


THE  LIBRARY 

called  a Lyggare , was  entrusted  to  an  old  monk 
( ’stationarius ),  who  received  for  his  pains  eight 
pounds  in  money  and  a new  cloak  (nova  toga),  valued 
at  ten  shillings.  The  copying,  however,  was  done  in 
London,  and  cost  £6  8s.  A new  ordinal  for  use  in  the 
prior’s  chapel  appears  to  have  been  produced  entirely 
by  outside  labour,  the  text  being  written  by  one 
Richard  Thyrlwall,  a secular  priest,  who  was  paid  at 
the  rate  of  I2d.  per  folio,  and  in  addition  received 
occasional  “ tips  ” or  “ refreshers,”  which  are  entered 
under  the  title  of  “ pro  regardo  ” ; while  the  illumina- 
tion was  entrusted  to  two  laymen  who  divided  the 
work  between  them.  The  book  contained  forty-five 
folios  of  uterine  vellum,  for  which  £i  16s.  4d.  was 
paid,  and  the  binding  cost  ten  shillings. 

But  to  revert  to  the  general  history  of  the  library. 
Two  years  before  the  suppression  of  the  priory,  a fire 
broke  out  in  the  prior’s  lodgings  which  spread  to  the 
adjoining  library.  The  disaster  occurred  when  the 
notorious  Dr.  Layton,  one  of  Cromwell’s  inquisitors, 
was  quartered  on  the  prior,  and,  according  to  Leland, 

I was  caused  by  the  Commissioners’  drunken  servants. 

The  damage  done  to  the  books  was  limited  to  those 
! contained  on  the  shelves  at  the  upper  end  of  the 
library,  so  that  Twyne’s  statement  that  “ many 
thousands  ” of  books  were  burnt  must  be  an  exaggera- 
tion.1 Still,  a good  many  were  destroyed,  and 
anlongst  them  those  which  Prior  Sellinge  had  brought 
/ from  Italy,  a loss  which  is  the  more  to  be  deplored  if 
! Twyne’s  statement  be  correct  that  amongst  them 
, i was  a copy  of  Cicero’s  De  Republica . 

Of  the  fate  of  the  monastic  library  at  the  time  of  the 
dissolution  no  record  remains.  Probably,  with  the 
>.j  exception  of  a few  volumes  which  from  their  splendour 
, or  historical  association  may  have  awakened  the 
i|  cupidity  of  the  King  or  his  courtiers,  the  bulk  of  the 
i]  collection  was  left  upon  the  shelves.  When,  however, 

1 De  rebus  Albionicis , pp.  113,  114. 

2B  385 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

it  became  clear  that  the  Reformation  had  come 
to  stay,  many  of  the  books  were  doubtless  regarded 
by  the  new  governing  body  as  merely  papistical 
trash  which  might  well  be  handed  over  to  such 
amateurs  as  would  appreciate  its  antiquarian  value. 
Archbishop  Parker  was  an  enthusiastic  collector  of 
ancient  books,  and  in  order  to  gratify  his  pro- 
pensity in  this  direction  he  procured  an  order  from 
the  Privy  Council  giving  him  a sort  of  roving  com- 
mission to  inspect  and  examine  “ such  ancient 
Records  and  Monuments  ...  as  were  heretofore 
preserved  and  recorded  ...  in  divers  abbies.” 
Armed  with  these  powers,  Parker  or  his  agents 
obtained  access  to  the  libraries  of  many  cathedrals 
of  the  new  foundation,  and  probably  in  many 
cases  was  readily  permitted  to  take  away  volumes 
which  filled  up  space  on  the  shelves  and  were  useless 
and  unintelligible  to  their  owners.  From  his  own 
cathedral  church  he  seems  to  have  gleaned  exten- 
sively, since  in  his  collections  at  Corpus  Christi  College 
in  Cambridge  several  of  the  choicest  treasures  of 
Christ  Church  are  to  be  found.  It  would,  however, 
be  unfair  to  conclude  that  in  all  cases  the  books  were 
taken  direct  from  the  shelves  of  the  library  ; some, 
we  know,  were  recovered  from  the  hands  of  private 
persons,  who  may  have  obtained  them  in  all  kinds  of 
questionable  ways  at  the  break-up  of  the  religious 
houses.  Thus,  in  the  “ Theodore  ” Homer  at  Corpus 
there  is  a note  stating  that  Parker  bought  the  volume 
from  a baker  in  Canterbury.  Still,  the  fact  remains 
that  out  of  482  manuscripts  which  Parker  gave  to  the 
College  forty-seven  were  once  in  the  conventual 
library  of  Christ  Church.  Archbishop  Whitgift  (1 5 83— 
1604)  seems  to  have  carried  off  a good  many  more,  for 
amongst  his  books  at  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  are 
fifty  MSS.  which  figure  in  Eastry’s  catalogue  ; while 
thirty  more  in  the  same  library  which  also  have 
Canterbury  press  marks  came  thither  through  the 
386 


THE  LI BRART 

bequest  of  Dr.  Nevill,  who  was  Dean  of  Canterbury 
from  1597  to  1615.  In  all  Dr.  James  has  identified 
130  Christ  Church  books  in  the  various  libraries  of 
Cambridge  University. 

The  Reformers,  however,  were  not  altogether  un- 
mindful of  the  advantages  of  cathedral  libraries,  and 
were  indeed  anxious  that  these  repositories  should 
contain  an  adequate  supply  of  sound  patristic  litera- 
ture. Thus  we  find  the  Royal  Injunctions  for  Cathe- 
drals issued  in  1547  directing  deans  and  chapters  to 
“ make  a library  in  some  convenient  place  within  their 
church  and  to  lay  in  the  same  St.  Augustine,  Basil, 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  Jerome,  Ambrose,  Chrysostom, 
Cyprian,  Theophylact,  Erasmus  and  other  good 
writers’  works.”  1 At  Canterbury  at  any  rate  an 
attempt  was  made  to  obey  these  injunctions,  for  from  a 
memorandum  preserved  amongst  the  Chapter  Archives 
dated  1551  we  learn  that  the  following  books  had  been 
placed  upon  the  library  shelves  : “ Basilius  Magnus , 
Ambrosii  opera  2 vol.,  Chrisostom  opera  4 vol.,  Theo- 
phylactj  Tertullianus , Cirilla  opera  2 vol.,  Hilarius 
Athanasius , Augustini  opera  6 vol.,  Ciprianus , Lactan- 
tius , Bernardi  opera , Epiphanius  latine , Historia 
ecclesiastica  Eusehii , Greg ’ Na%ian\  Biblia  Roberti 
Stephanie  Josephus  de  Antiquitibus , Griphionis  Biblia 
Anglic  e” 

Nevertheless,  by  the  third  decade  of  the  seventeenth 
century  the  shelves  had  become  sadly  depleted,  for 
Somner,  writing  about  1640,  says  that  though  the 
church’s  library  was  by  the  founder  “ and  others  once 
well  stored  with  books,”  it  had  been  “ in  man’s 
memory  shamefully  robbed  and  spoiled  of  them  all — 
an  act  much  prejudiciall  and  very  injurious  both 
to  posterity  and  the  commonwealth  of  letters.” 2 
Although  there  was  no  doubt  abundant  justification 

1 See  Freer’s  Visitation  Articles , Alcuin  Club  Collections,  vol.  iii. 
p.  136. 

2 Vhe  Antiquities  of  Canterbury , p.  174. 


1 


387 


CANTERBURT  CATHEDRAL 

for  Somner’s  strictures,  his  statement  cannot  really 
mean  that  every  volume  which  had  once  formed  part 
of  the  monastic  library  had  been  alienated,  since  an 
inventory  made  in  1634  shows  that  twenty-five  books 
which  are  enumerated  in  the  pre-Reformation  lists 
were  still  on  the  shelves,  and  they  are  there  to  this 
day.1  As  a matter  of  fact,  the  dean  and  chapter  had 
already  waked  to  a sense  of  responsibility  in  the  matter, 
for  at  their  chapter  meeting  of  June  23,  1628,  the 
following  resolution  was  passed  : “ That  every  man 
should  do  his  endeavour  to  refurnish  the  ancient 
library  of  the  said  church.  And  that  a book  of  velume 
should  be  provided  wherein  the  names  of  the  Bene- 
factors should  be  registered,  and  that  the  two  upper- 
most deskes  should  be  instantly  fitted  for  the  receipt 
of  such  books  as  shall  be  first  given  to  the  encourage- 
ment of  so  good  a work.”  2 The  “ booke  of  velume  ” 
is  still  extant,  and  contains  the  names  of  thirty-one 
donors  and  the  titles  of  298  works.  Archbishop  Abbot, 
who  died  in  1633,  was  the  chief  benefactor  ; he  is 
credited  with  forty-six  volumes,  duplicates  probably 
from  the  Lambeth  library. 

As  a further  means  of  replenishing  their  shelves  the 
chapter  hit  upon  the  expedient  of  demanding  a book 
for  the  library  from  their  tenants  when  leases  were 
renewed ; and  they  also  set  aside  a part  of  the  money 
accruing  from  fines  to  the  same  purpose.  By  these 
means  good  progress  was  being  made  in  the  collection 
of  books,  when  further  development  was  checked  by 
the  great  Rebellion.  In  the  year  1650  the  trustees  for 
the  lands  of  deans  and  chapters  issued  the  following 
order  : “ That  Captain  Sherman  doe  make  a catalogue 
of  all  the  Bookes  in  the  liberarie  of  Canterburie,  and 
that  he  take  care  for  the  speedie  sending  them  up  to 
Surrey  (?)  howse  in  the  ould  Jewrie.”  The  dean’s 

1 The  list  is  printed  in  Messrs.  Legg  and  Hope’s  Inventories  of  Christ 
Church , Canterbury , London,  1903. 

2 Acta  Capituli , sub  annot  f.  304^. 

388 


THE  LIBRARY 


< 


chapel  and  the  library  over  it  were  certainly  pulled 
down  about  this  time,  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  the 
books  were  sent  to  London.  If  they  were,  it  would 
seem  that  the  collection  was  recovered  en  bloc  at  the 
Restoration,  for  all  the  books  mentioned  in  an  Inven- 
tory of  1634  and  t^ie  Gift  Book  purchased  in  1628 
are  still  in  the  library. 

When  the  Restoration  had  again  put  the  dean  and 
chapter  in  possession  of  their  church  and  estates,  Arch- 
bishop Juxon  came  forward  with  a munificent  donation 
of  five  hundred  pounds  “ for  the  building,  repairing 
or  fitting  up  of  the  place  formerly  called  the  Dean’s 
Chapel  ” in  order  that  it  might  serve  as  a repository 
of  the  books.  With  this  benefaction  the  red-brick 
building  in  which  the  Howley-Harrison  collection  of 
books  is  now  preserved  was  erected,  and  a note  in  the 
above-mentioned  “ Gift  Book”  records  that  Dr. Warner, 
bishop  of  Rochester  and  a canon  of  Canterbury,  gave 
another  five  hundred  pounds  “ to  make  the  classis 
(. shelves ) and  furnish  books.”  Nor  was  this  all,  for  by 
his  will  (proved  January  7,  1667)  he  bequeathed  to  the 
dean  and  chapter  a further  sum  of  six  hundred  pounds, 
“ to  be  bestowed  on  books  for  ye  late  erected 
Library.” 

The  Bishop’s  bequest  enabled  the  dean  and  chapter 
to  spend  very  considerable  sums  in  the  purchase  of 
bpoks,  as  the  following  extracts  from  the  treasurers’ 
accounts  will  show.  In  1668  a bookseller  named 
Cornelius  Bee 1 was  paid  ^151  6s.  6d.,  and  John  Crooke, 
a member  of  the  same  fraternity,  received  .£91  17s. 
“ for  books  for  the  chapter  library.”  In  the  following 
year  the  MS.  collections  of  William  Somner  were 
purchased  from  the  antiquary’s  widow,  who  gives  a 
receipt  for  .£100  8s.  “ for  certain  books  and  a case  of 


1 Somner,  in  his  Preface  to  his  Saxon  Dictionary,  says  of  Bee,  “ that 
he  was  a man  who  had  deserved  very  well  of  the  republic  of  letters,  by 
publishing  at  his  own  care  and  cost  many  books  of  better  note,  wherein 
he  was  so  industrious,  as  literally  to  answer  to  his  name.” 


389 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

shelves  which  were  my  husband’s  in  his  lifetime.” 
Forty  pounds  were  paid  to  Bee  in  the  same  year,  and  in 
1670  the  chapter  “ laid  out  in  books  to  Mr.  Bee  of  ye 
Lord  of  Rochester’s  gift  .£250  10s.”  Archbishop 
Sancroft  was  also  a good  benefactor,  for  it  is  recorded 
that  he  gave  to  the  chapter  library  at  Canterbury  all 
the  duplicate  volumes  at  Lambeth,  “ he  buying  as 
many  more  for  that  Library  according  as  they  were 
valued.” 

During  the  eighteenth  century  there  was  a steady 
increase  of  the  collection,  so  that  in  1802,  when  the 
first  printed  catalogue  was  issued,  there  were  3656 
volumes  on  the  shelves.  In  1823  a valuable  collection 
of  early  printed  Bibles  and  rare  liturgical  books,  which 
had  been  formed  by  the  Rev.  Thomas  Coombe,  D.D., 
(canon  of  the  seventh  stall  from  1800  to  1822),  was  pre- 
sented to  the  church  by  that  gentleman’s  sons.  During 
the  next  forty  years  the  books  increased  so  rapidly 
that  Juxon’s  building  was  found  insufficient  to  contain 
them,  and  a new  library  was  built  from  the  plans  of 
H.  G.  Austin,  the  cathedral  architect,  on  the  site  of 
the  monastic  dormitory.  In  order  to  make  the  new 
work  harmonise  with  the  ancient  windows  which  were 
incorporated  in  its  western  wall,  the  architect  adopted 
a pseudo-Norman  style,  with  the  result  that  though 
its  details  are  certainly  open  to  criticism,  the  room  is 
of  noble  proportions,  well  lighted,  and  in  every  way 
admirably  suited  to  its  purpose.  The  books  were 
removed  from  the  old  to  the  new  library  in  1868,  and 
the  former,  after  remaining  empty  for  nineteen  years, 
was  refitted  in  1887  to  receive  Archdeacon  Harrison’s 
bequest,  and  thenceforward  has  been  known  as  the 
Howley-Harrison  Library.  This  collection  comprises 
the  books  bequeathed  by  Archbishop  Howley  in  1848 
to  the  Venerable  Benjamin  Harrison,  Archdeacon 
of  Maidstone,  and  Canon  of  Canterbury  from  1845 
to  1887,  and  sometime  his  Grace’s  chaplain.  The 
Archdeacon  by  his  will  left  the  Howley  books  and  his 

39° 


THE  LIB  RART 

own  to  his  widow,  with  verbal  instructions  as  to  their 
disposal.  In  consequence  of  these  instructions  Mrs. 
Harrison  gave  the  whole  collection  to  the  dean  and 
chapter  in  1887. 

The  Howley-Harrison  library  contains  11,711 
volumes,  and  is  especially  rich  in  early  printed  Bibles, 
liturgical  books  and  controversial  tracts  and  pamphlets. 
The  printed  books  in  the  chapter  library  number  at 
the  present  time  (1911)  13,600  volumes.  It  is  open 
to  readers  each  Tuesday  and  Friday  (with  occasional 
exceptions)  from  11.15  a.m.  to  1.15  p.m.  when  the 
assistant  librarian  is  in  attendance.  Books  may  be 
borrowed  by  beneficed  and  licensed  clergy  of  the 
diocese,  and  by  other  persons  who  possess  the 
written  permission  of  the  librarian  or  deputy  librarian. 
The  Howley-Harrison  library  is  not  open  to  the 
public,  but  on  days  when  the  chapter  library  is 
open  the  catalogue  of  the  former  is  placed  on  the 
table,  and  readers  may  borrow  books  by  written 
consent  of  the  dean  or  of  a canon  or  of  the  deputy 
librarian. 

The  muniments  of  the  church  were  not  considered 
to  be  a part  of  the  monastic  library,  nor  were  they  kept 
there  in  mediaeval  times.  At  Christ  Church  the 
charters  were  preserved  in  chests  in  the  treasury,  and 
the  monastic  registers  and  other  books  relating  to  the 
domestic  or  rural  economy  of  the  priory  either  in  an 
apartment  over  the  old  audit  house  or  in  the  offices  of 
the  various  obedientiaries.  After  the  suppression  of  the 
monastery  the  bulk  of  the  archives  remained  in  their 
former  depositories.  Dean  Wotton  was  fully  alive  to 
his  responsibilities  as  custodian  of  these  documents,  and 
took  special  precautions  to  prevent  their  alienation. 
Thus,  when  in  1564  Thomas  Cartwright,  the  well- 
known  controversialist,  made  an  application  to  view 
the  archives,  the  dean  (who  was  in  London  at  the 
time)  writes  to  the  chapter  that  Cartwright  should 
not  be  allowed  to  go  up  into  the  treasury,  but  that 

391 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

“ the  books  and  writings  ” should  be  laid  out  for  his 
inspection  “in  some  aulmery  beneath  the  treasury 
house.”  “ I would  wish,”  the  dean  continues,  “ that 
Mr.  Butler,  who  hath  taken  paynes  and  knoweth  best 
where  to  fynde  oute  all  kinds  of  wrytinges,  with  one 
or  more  were  appointed  to  make  out  the  said  search, 
and  to  gather  all  the  writings  that  shall  serve  for  the 
purpose  required  together.” 

It  would  seem,  however,  that  some  records  were 
concealed  on  the  eve  of  the  dissolution,  since  early  in 
the  seventeenth  century  a curious  petition  mentions  the 
discovery  of  documents  which  had  apparently  been 
bricked  up  somewhere  in  the  Cathedral.  The  peti- 
tioner, who  was  one  of  the  minor  canons  and  sacrist, 
describes  how  he  (like  Durdles  in  Dickens’  Edwin 
Drood)  was  in  the  habit  of  tapping  about  the  walls  of 
the  church  with  a hammer,  and  that  in  the  course  of  his 
investigations  he  hit  upon  a place  which  sounded 
hollow,  whereupon  “ he  beat  down  the  wall  with  a 
spike,”  and  came  upon  a door  “ which  was  made  up 
with  breke  and  whytened  over.”  Within  he  discovered 
a chamber  “ where  were  many  ould  writings.”  He  then 
informed  the  canons  of  his  discovery,  but  none  of  them 
were  able  to  read  the  writings  except  Dr.  Simpson,  who 
found  the  documents  related  to  land  that  “ was  not 
known  before,”  and  to  the  “ composition  between  the 
King  and  the  convent  for  the  water  of  the  parke.” 
He  therefore  asks  the  dean  and  chapter  to  reward  him 
for  his  services.1 

Dr.  Wotton’s  successors  in  the  deanery  were  perhaps 
less  careful  guardians  of  the  archives  than  he  had  been, 
for  there  is  evidence  that  some  important  Christ 
Church  MSS.  had  found  their  way  into  lay  hands 
when  Laud  was  archbishop  and  Bargrave  was  dean. 
Thus,  in  1638  a clergyman  named  William  Watts 
wrote  to  the  dean  and  chapter  intimating  that  he 

1 The  petition  is  undated,  but  from  internal  evidence  it  must  have 
been  drawn  up  about  the  year  1615. 

392 


THE  LIBRARY 


knew  the  whereabouts  of  several  volumes  which 
had  once  been  in  their  keeping.  The  first  sheet  of 
this  letter  is  missing,  but  the  remainder  is  so  curious 
and  interesting  that  we  are  tempted  to  quote  it  in 
extenso . The  part  extant  runs  thus  : 


Perhaps  it  was  the  Priories  Booke,  or  perhaps  but  a transcript  out  of 
severall  ones,  or  at  least  some  originalls  and  some  copies.  ...  I have 
a firm  presumption  that  it  hath  not  been  in  yr  muniment  house  these 
20  yeares,  and  so  much  you  would  all  say  should  I discover  where  I 
had  it.  For  plainly  gentlemen  there  are  other  manuscripts  in  ye  same 
nest  which  some  time  were  yours  or  ye  moncks’  before  you.  And  one 
among  ye  rest  written  by  a monck  of  ye  same  convent.  I am  to  wayte 
upon  my  Lord’s  grace  a week  after  ye  term  and  then  will  I present 
yr  book  unto  him  for  yr  use,  and  if  his  Grace’s  leisure  will  serve  to  heare 
mee,  I shall  intymate  a handsome  byway  how  it  may  be  fitt  for  him  to 
send  Mr.  Bray  to  see  some  wrytings  in  that  Librarie  where  when  he  is 
he  may  alsoe  take  notice  of  ye  parchment  manuscripts.  Sincerely  and 
in  verbo  sacerdotis  I sometymes  persuaded  such  as  have  possession  of 
ym  to  restore  ym  to  you.  ...  In  the  meantyme  I know  gentlemen  that 
there  are  many  of  yours  in  Bennet  Colledge  and  some  in  Sir  R.  Cotton’s 
Library,  one  of  which  myself  some  26  yeares  ago  got  for  him  in  Cam- 
bridge. Some  3 yeares  since  I met  with  your  statutes  glossed  and 
interpreted  in  ye  margent  by  Kg  Henry  8th’s  owne  hand,  and  Henricus 
Octavus  written  on  ye  toppe  of  ye  first  page,  and  Matthew  Parker’s 
name  in  ye  margent.  . . . There  were  also  written  in  Sir  Matthew 
Parker’s  hand  “ Hae  sunt  fere  Statua  Ecclesiae  Gloucestrensis,”  which  I 
understand  not.  With  these  was  bound  a booke  of  ye  Obites  and 
particular  places  of  burialls  of  ye  Priors  and  some  Archbishops  which 
have  noe  tombes,  or  lye  not  under  them,  with  ye  precise  distances  from 
ye  severall  Altars,  walls  or  pillars  that  they  were  interred.  And  in  an 
ancient  hand  (which  made  me  most  of  all  desyre  it)  were  ye  formes  of 
ye  consecration  of  your  church  and  of  ye  instalment  of  Archbishop 
Pichard  Withersted,  if  I read  it  right.  The  booke  was  an  inch  and  half 
thick,  bound  in  printed  leather  with  2 claspes  in  a small  folio.  I read 
2 hours  in  it.  The  Bookseller  asked  me  20s  for  it,  which  I being  loth 
to  give,  and  fearing  to  buye  lest  you  should  have  said  I found  it  amongst 
Dr.  Sympson’s  books,  soe  soon  as  my  back  was  turned  a Gent  or  Lawyer 
who  saw  me  about  it  bought  it  up  presently.  But  these  notes  I give 
that  if  any  of  you  do  light  upon  it  you  may  doe  as  you  see  cause.  Worthy 
and  honoured  gentlemen,  I am  yr  sincere  servant  and  will  ever  remayne 
yr  Worships  to  honour  and  serve  you  all,  William  Watts 

9ber  26,  1638 


Whether  the  dean  and  chapter  made  any  efforts  to 
recover  this  volume  we  do  not  know  ; at  any  rate,  it 

393 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

is  not  at  the  present  time  in  their  possession.  Even 
if  they  did  recover  it,  the  book  may  have  disappeared 
again  during  the  troublous  times  which  a few  years 
after  the  above  letter  was  written  wrought  sad  havoc 
among  the  muniments  of  the  church,  for  Somner  tells 
us  that  during  the  Great  Rebellion  “ the  Records  and 
evidences  of  all  sorts  were  seized  and  distracted,  many 
of  them  irrevocably  lost,  and  the  rest  not  retrieved 
without  much  trouble  and  cost.5’  Happily,  however, 
the  retrieving  process  was  apparently  fairly  successful, 
since  the  collection  of  manuscripts  is  still  a very 
extensive  one. 

Further  losses  were  sustained  in  1670  through  a fire 
which  broke  out  in  the  audit  house.  The  damage 
would  have  been  worse  had  not  the  alarm  been 
promptly  given  by  a lady  who  while  passing  through 
the  Dark  Entry  noticed  smoke  issuing  from  the 
windows  of  the  audit  house,  so  that  the  Cathedral 
workmen  were  able  to  extinguish  the  flames  before 
they  had  gained  a complete  hold  of  the  building.  It 
is  pleasant  to  add  that  the  dean  and  chapter  acknow- 
ledged their  obligations  to  the  lady  by  presenting  her 
with  twelve  pairs  of  white  kid  gloves  ! 1 

Although  the  fire  was  fortunately  arrested  before  it 
gained  a complete  hold  of  the  room,  many  of  the 
records,  including  several  register  books,  were  greatly 
injured,  and  no  attempt  was  made  to  repair  the 
damage,  for  Nicholas  Batteley,  writing  to  Strype  in 
1690  (twenty  years  after  the  event),  says  : “ The 

Archdeacon  was  so  kind  as  to  lend  me  the  keys  of 
the  library,  and  of  ye  presses  where  ye  MSS.  lye, 
and  when  I had  looked  them  over  he  went  with  me 
into  ye  place  where  ye  records  lie,  where  we  spent  a 
whole  forenoon  . . . but  in  ye  place  where  ye  Records 
of  about  ye  time  of  K.  Edward  and  Qu.  Elizabeth 

1 “ July  29,  1670.  By  order  12  payre  of  gloves,  white  kid,  &c.,  for  a 
present  to  Miss  Savin  for  giving  notice  of  the  fyre  as  per  bill,  £l  3s.” — 
Treasurers'  Accounts. 

394 


T HE  LIBRA  RT 

lay  were  found  heaps  of  burnt  papers  ; for  some  years 
ago  a fire  happened  to  ye  place  where  ye  records 
lay,  whereby  many  of  them  were  consumed,  and  ye 
rest  much  defaced.  A damage  irrecoverable  ! ” 1 A 
hundred  years  later  the  charred  MSS.  were  in  much 
the  same  condition,  for  Hasted  in  his  History  of  Kent 
states  that  “ many  of  the  manuscripts  which  suffered 
by  the  above  fire  remain  in  the  same  mutilated  state 
as  at  their  first  removal  (from  the  old  audit  house), 
though  many  of  them  might  with  care  be  recovered, 
in  a heap  on  the  floor,  in  one  of  the  rooms  over  the 
vestry  of  the  church.”2  During  the  past  year  (1911) 
a portion  of  the  loose  paper  leaves  of  the  registers  of 
Edwardian,  Marian  and  Elizabethan  times  have  been 
guarded  and  bound  by  an  expert  and  an  index  of  their 
contents  compiled.  The  treatment  of  the  curled 
leaves  of  the  vellum  books  presents  a more  difficult 
problem,  which  has  not  yet  been  solved. 

In  1804  the  dean  and  chapter  at  their  St.  Katherine’s 
audit  passed  a resolution  that  the  whole  collection  of 
MSS.  should  be  examined  and  catalogued.  The  work 
was  entrusted  to  Mr.  Cyprian  Rondeau  Bunce,  a 
Canterbury  lawyer  and  antiquary,  who  completed  his 
task  in  two  years.  This  was  a heavy  piece  of  work,  for 
the  Chart ce  Antiquce  alone  number  nearly  six  thousand, 
but  Mr.  Bunce  accomplished  it  with  much  success, 
^nd  his  catalogue  still  remains  the  key  to  the  collection. 
Unfortunately,  when  the  audit  house  was  pulled  down 
in  1868  the  muniments  were  removed  to  other  deposi- 
tories without  any  pains  being  taken  to  preserve  the 
press  marks  noted  in  Bunce’s  catalogue,  so  that  for 
many  years  that  great  work  was  of  little  use  for  the 
purpose  of  finding  any  particular  document. 

The  late  Dr.  John  Brigstock  Sheppard,  who  devoted 
more  than  thirty-five  years  of  his  life  to  work  amongst 
the  Cathedral  archives,  made  a very  valuable  index  to 

1 Strype’s  Correspondence , vol.  iii. 

2 History  of  Kent , 8vo  ed.  vol.  iv.  p.  579. 


395 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

the  monastic  registers,  and  transcribed  a large  number 
of  the  Chart ce  Antiques , notably  those  which  possess 
especial  historical  interest.  His  report  on  the  collec- 
tion to  the  Historical  MSS.  Commission  is  well  known 
and  has  been  of  the  greatest  service  to  students.1 
Shortly  before  his  death,  which  occurred  in  1895,  a 
large  number  of  ancient  documents  were  discovered 
in  a loft  over  a stable  in  the  stonemason’s  yard, 
whither  they  had  been  relegated  probably  in  the  early 
years  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Amongst  them  were 
many  letters  of  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  cen- 
turies, which  proved  to  be  of  considerable  historical 
interest.  Dr.  Sheppard  began  to  make  a calendar  of 
these  letters,  and  this  has  been  completed  recently  by 
the  present  deputy  librarian,  who  has  also  added  an 
index  to  the  whole  series. 

In  1905  Mr.  J.  P.  Gilson,  of  the  MSS.  Department 
of  the  British  Museum,  was  invited  by  the  dean  and 
chapter  to  inspect  their  records,  and  to  advise  what 
methods  should  be  adopted  in  order  to  ensure  the 
safety  of  the  collection,  and  at  the  same  time  make  it 
more  accessible  for  research  purposes.  In  response  to 
this  invitation  Mr.  Gilson  paid  a visit  to  Canterbury, 
made  a survey  of  the  archives,  and  issued  a report. 
In  accordance  with  the  recommendations  made 
therein,  the  whole  collection  has  been  placed  under 
review  and  brought  again  into  relation  with  the 
great  catalogue  of  1806.  In  order  to  include  the 
documents  discovered  since  that  date,  Bunce’s  cata- 
logue has  been  interleaved  and  rebound  in  three 
volumes,  and  descriptions  of  the  additional  MSS. 
have  been  inserted  on  the  extra  leaves.  The  ancient 
deeds,  which,  with  a few  exceptions,  were  folded 
and  tied  into  bundles,  have  been  flattened  out, 
marked  with  the  library  stamp,  and  arranged  in 
drawers  having  letters  and  numbers  attached  corre- 
sponding to  those  in  the  catalogue,  so  that  any 
1 Historical  MSS.  Commission’s  Reports,  v.  viii.  and  Appendix  to  ix. 

396 


THE  LI BRART 

particular  document  can  be  readily  produced  when 
required.  The  following  epitome  of  the  collection 
will  be  sufficient  to  indicate  its  extent  and  importance, 
and  further  may  be  of  service  to  students  who  desire 
to  ascertain  what  kind  of  information  the  Canterbury 
records  may  be  expected  to  yield. 

The  whole  collection  of  MSS.  may  be  divided 
roughly  into  two  classes,  viz.  detached  documents  and 
bound  volumes.  Of  the  former  by  far  the  most 
important  are  the  Chartce  Antiques  or  muniments 
proper.  These  number  nearly  6000,  and  date  from 
the  eighth  to  the  sixteenth  century.  They  are  cata- 
logued under  place-names,  but  there  is  also  a short 
index  of  subjects.  The  Anglo-Saxon  charters  are 
thirty-three  in  number,  of  which  the  earliest  is  a grant 
from  zEthelbald,  King  of  the  Mercians,  dated  a.d.  742. 
No.  XIV  is  a grant  of  Reculver  to  Christ  Church, 
Canterbury,  by  Eadred  totius  Albionis  monarchus  et 
primicerius.  This  is  the  famous  MS.  which  claims 
on  the  strength  of  the  attestation  clause  to  be  in  the 
handwriting  of  St.  Dunstan.  But  there  is  another 
copy  in  the  British  Museum  (Cotton  Aug.  II.  57) 
which  makes  the  same  claim  on  the  same  ground. 
Twenty-three  of  these  charters  have  been  reproduced 
by  photo-zincography  in  Facsimiles  of  Anglo-Saxon 
MSS.  Part  I,  published  on  the  recommendation  of  the 
Master  of  the  Rolls,  and  are  there  transcribed  and 
translated  by  Mr.  W.  Basevi  Sanders,  who  has  also 
written  an  introduction  describing  them.  They  have 
also  been  printed  in  full  by  Mr.  Kemble  in  the  Codex 
Diplomaticus  Anglo-Saxonum , and  with  greater  accuracy 
bv  Mr.  W.  de  Gray  Birch  in  Cartularium  Saxonicum . 
Five  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  charters  are  later  than  the 
Conquest.  The  Anglo-Norman  charters  (William  I. 
to  John)  exceed  seventy  in  number.  They  have  all 
been  photographed  at  the  instance  of  the  late  M. 
Delisle,  of  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  in  Paris,  for 
his  monumental  work  on  Norman  charters. 


397 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Those  charters  that  have  valuable  seals  attached 
to  them  are  arranged  in  boxes,  and  are  placed  in 
separate  cabinets.  A brief  analysis  of  their  contents 
is  subjoined  : 

(1)  The  kings  of  England  are  represented  by  141 
examples,  ranging  from  William  I.  (fragment  only)  to 
James  I.  ; William  II.  being  the  only  absentee. 

(2)  The  kings  of  France  provide  five  seals,  the 
MSS.  attached  to  which  all  relate  to  the  annual  grant 
of  wine  given  by  the  kings  of  France  to  the  convent  of 
Christ  Church. 

(3)  Thirty  Archbishops  are  represented  by  eighty- 
eight  seals,  Anselm’s  being  the  first  and  Cranmer’s  the 
last ; Ralph,  Baldwin,  Reginald,  Kilwardby,  Brad- 
wardine,  Ufford,  Chicheley,  Kemp  and  Bourchier  are 
missing. 

(4)  Bishops  of  the  southern  province  furnish  about 
fifty  seals,  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  being 
the  most  prolific  periods. 

(5)  Conventual  seals  afford  about  100  examples. 

(6)  The  heads  of  religious  houses,  abbots,  priors, 
&c.,  appear  in  about  fifty  instances. 

(7)  Private  seals  of  clergy  and  laymen  make  up  the 
number  to  690.  The  clerical  seals  are  very  interesting, 
many  of  them  being  impressed  by  antique  gems  ; 
this  is  also  the  case  with  several  of  the  counter-seals 
of  the  archbishops  and  bishops. 

(B)  Account  rolls.  These  number  about  2500; 
thirteenth  to  early  sixteenth  centuries  ; the  earliest 
is  an  almoners’  roll  of  1269.  They  fall  into  the 
following  classes  : 

(a)  Rolls  relating  to  the  domestic  economy  of  the 
priory,  viz.  those  kept  by  the  following  monastic 
officers:  the  almoner  (64);  cellarer  (11);  chamber- 
lain  (64) ; treasurers  (28) ; sacrist  (62) ; granger  (64) ; 
bartoner  (36) ; bartoner’s  bailiff  (32) ; prior’s  chaplains 
(10);  anniversary  (21);  warden  of  malthouse  (15); 

398 


THE  LIBRARY 

seneschal  (41);  various  ( computi  divers!)  (12);  general 
( assissa  de  scaccario)  (13). 

(b)  Rolls  relating  to  rural  economy,  viz.  the  rolls  of 
the  provosts  and  bedels  of  the  manors  (about  2000). 

(c)  Visitation  rolls  (18).  These  are  of  fourteenth- 
century  date,  and  contain  proceedings  in  the  court 
of  the  prior  and  chapter  acting  as  guardians  of  the 
spiritualities  when  the  see  was  vacant. 

There  are  also  about  320  rolls  containing  the 
depositions  of  witnesses  in  ecclesiastical  suits,  of  the 
thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries. 

(C)  Documents  discovered  since  the  compilation 
of  Bunce’s  catalogue  in  1806,  and  not  included  therein, 
viz.  : 

(a)  Sede  V acante  instruments  (1211).  These  date 
from  the  early  years  of  the  thirteenth  century  down- 
wards. They  were  mounted  by  the  late  Dr.  Sheppard 
in  scrap-books,  transcribed  and  indexed,  the  latter 
imperfectly. 

( b ) Letters,  thirteenth  to  sixteenth  centuries  (1267). 

( c ) Miscellaneous,  but  chiefly  relating  to  the  do- 
mestic and  rural  economy  of  the  priory ; 1081 

documents. 

Class  C has  been  calendared  and  indexed  in  recent 
years. 

Bound  Volumes 

(1)  The  Monastic  Registers.  These  registers  are 
contained  in  twenty-one  volumes,  lettered  from  A to 
T2.  They  were  bound  under  the  direction  of  Samuel 
Norris,  auditor  and  chapter  clerk  from  1711  to  1753. 
The  work  was  so  carelessly  executed  that  not  only 
were  documents  of  quite  different  date  and  subject 
bound  up  in  one  volume,  but  not  infrequently  the 
pages  of  a document  were  misplaced,  and  even  the 
pages  of  different  registers  were  intermingled.  Many 
of  the  volumes  have  suffered  in  times  past  from  fire 

399 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

or  damp,  and  several  of  the  most  dilapidated  have 
recently  been  repaired  and  rebound  at  a very  consider- 
able expense.  The  arrangement  of  the  documents, 
however,  remains  unchanged  in  the  rebound  volumes, 
in  order  that  the  indexes  should  not  be  disturbed. 
A full  index  of  each  volume  was  made  by  the  late 
Dr.  Sheppard.  The  following  brief  description  of 
the  several  volumes  will  be  sufficient  to  indicate  the 
nature  of  their  contents  : 

Register  A.  Documents  relating  to  the  liberties 
and  estates  of  the  church  of  Canterbury  from  the 
seventh  to  the  fifteenth  century.  The  earliest  were 
copied  into  this  book  when  Henry  of  Eastry  was  prior, 
1284-1331.  600  fo.  vellum. 

Register  B.  An  account  of  the  Christ  Church 

manors  outside  the  county  of  Kent.  450  fo.  vellum. 

Register  C.  A similar  record  of  the  manors  within 
the  county  of  Kent.  293  fo.  vellum. 

Register  D.  A continuation  of  the  last. 

300  fo.  vellum. 

Register  E.  Registrum  Omnium  Cartarum  et  Com- 
posicionum  Ecclesie  Cantuar . Compiled  temp.  Prior 

Eastry.  408  fo.  vellum 

At  the  end  are  fifty  folios  of  the  ordinary  register 
of  the  convent  for  the  year  1501. 

Register  F.  Copies  of  wills  proved  in  the  court  of 
the  prior  of  Christ  Church  ( Sede  vac  ante).  An  index 
of  names  is  in  the  eighth  report  of  the  Historical  MSS. 
Commission,  pp.  332-333.  290  fo.  vellum. 

Register  G.  Acts  of  the  prior  and  chapter  during 

vacancies  of  the  see  of  Canterbury  between  the  years 
1348-1413.  300  fo.  vellum. 

Register  H.  A composite  volume  made  up  of  several 
distinct  Libelli , viz.  (a)  rentals,  the  earliest  being  of 
twelfth-century  date  ; ( b ) the  conventual  register, 

1 35 3— 1 373  ; ( c ) compositions  between  Christ  Church 
and  St.  Augustine’s,  and  between  Archbishop  Boni- 
face and  the  prior  and  convent  of  Christ  Church  ; 
400 


THE  LIBRARY 

(d)  manorial  extents;  ( e ) Assisa  Scaccarii , 1252- 
1262.  230  fo.  vellum. 

Register  I.  Made  up  of  three  Libelli , viz.  (a)  a land 
chartulary,  temp . Prior  Eastry  ; ( b ) letters,  patents, 
writs,  &c.,  1290-1340  ; ( c ) a list  of  the  more  important 
evidences  and  muniments.  477  fo.  vellum. 

Register  J.  Surveys,  and  extents  of  Manors,  and 
treatises  on  Rural  Economy,  compiled  by  brother 
John  de  Gore  (1286-1326).  300  fo.  vellum. 

Register  K.  Records  of  suits,  domestic  economy  and 
rentals,  temp . Prior  Eastry  (one  is  earlier). 

271  fo.  vellum. 

Register  L.  The  letter  book  of  Christ  Church, 
1318-1367.  [The  greater  part  of  the  contents  are 
printed  in  Literce  Cantuariensis , edited  by  Dr.  Shep- 
pard for  the  Master  of  the  Rolls.]  206  fo.  paper. 

Register  M.  Taxacio  Benejiciorum  Ecclesiasticorum 
per  totam  Angliam  et  W alii  am,  1384-5.  [A  fourteenth- 
century  copy  of  the  Taxation  of  Pope  Nicolas  IV.] 

300  fo.  vellum. 

Register  N.  Made  up  of  two  Libelli , viz.  (1)  The 
Sede  V ac ante  register  for  the  years  1553,  1554,  1 5 55  ; 
(2)  copies  of  monastic  records,  beginning  in  the  year 

280  fo.  paper, 
economy,  temp . 


H38-  . 
Register  O. 

Prior  Eastry. 
Register  P. 


Rural  and  domestic 

200  fo.  vellum. 
Much  the  same  as  Register  O. 

188  fo.  vellum. 

Register  Q.  Sede  V acante  records  from  1292-1349. 

236  fo.  vellum. 

Register  R.  Sede  V acante  records,  i486,  1500,  1503. 

190  fo.  vellum. 

Register  S.  General  register  of  the  priory,  1390- 
1500.  450  fo.  vellum. 

Register  Ti.  General  register  of  the  priory,  1506- 
1532.  350  fo.  vellum. 

Register  T2.  General  register  of  the  priory,  153 2— 
1540*  176  fo.  vellum. 

2 c 401 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

(2)  Registers  of  the  dean  and  chapter  between  the 

years  1541-1800.  27  vols. 

Gaps  occur  in  the  earlier  volumes,  notably  in  the 
reigns  of  Edward  VI,  Mary  I,  Elizabeth,  James  I,  and 
Charles  I,  but  these  have  been  recently  to  some 
extent  filled  by  the  repair  of  the  charred  leaves  of 
former  register  books.  (See  above,  p.  395.) 

(3)  Treasurers5  account  books,  1541-1800.  170  vols. 

The  series  is  incomplete,  and  some  of  the  earlier 

volumes  are  in  a very  frail  condition. 

(4)  Receiver-General’s  account  books,  1600-1800. 

133  vols. 

(5)  Rentals  and  registers  of  the  provosts  and  bedels 

of  the  manors  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  cen- 
turies. 17  vols. 

(6)  Act  books  of  the  dean  and  chapter,  1561-1800. 
The  two  first  volumes  are  badly  damaged  by  fire. 

11  vols. 

(7)  Miscellaneous  books  of  accounts,  fifteenth  to 

eighteenth  century.  90  vols. 

(8)  Court  books  of  the  archdeaconry  and  consistory 

courts  from  the  closing  years  of  the  fourteenth  to  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century.  359  vols. 

APPENDIX 

A list  of  the  books  which  were  once  in  the  conventual 
library  and  are  still  preserved  in  the  library  of  the  dean 
and  chapter  : 

Egidius  de  Columna  romanus.  De  regimine  princi - 
pum.  Fifteenth  century. 

Constitutiones : Othonis  et  Ottoboni ; Oxonie  de 

libertalibus  ecclesiarum ; Bonejacii  Archiepiscopi ; 

Johis  Peckham  Arciepiscopi.  Fourteenth  century. 

Constitutiones  Othonis  et  Ottoboni  cum  glossa  Johis 
de  Aton . Fifteenth  century. 

Liber  tertius  Decretalium  et  Repertorium  Clementi - 
narum  Thome  de  W alkyngton.  Fourteenth  century. 

402 


THE  LIBRARY 

Summa  Decretalium  cum  summa  Gaujridi . 

Thirteenth  century. 

Libri  quinque  Decretalium  Abbrev  : per  Henricum 

Hostiensem . Given  to  Christ  Church  by  Prior  Thomas 
Chillenden.  Fourteenth  century. 

Johannis  de  Hyspano  Casus  Decretalium . This  book 
belonged  to  Prior  Adam  Chillenden. 

Thirteenth  century. 

Cawston  Thomas.  An  obituary  of  the  monks  of 
Christ  Church  from  1286  to  1507,  &c. 

Fifteenth  century. 

Gregorii  Epistolce  Decretales. 

Early  fourteenth  century. 

Grosteste,  Robert.  Diversi  tractatus  pcenitentice. 

Fourteenth  century. 

Correctorium  totius  Biblie, 

Fifteenth  century. 

Hugo  de  Sancto  Claro,  Super  quatuor  Libros  Sententi- 
\ arum.  Thirteenth  century. 

Ingram,  W.  Logica . Fifteenth  century. 

Langton,  Stephen.  Moralia . Three  vols.  A com- 
! mentary  on  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Joshua,  Judges, 
Ruth,  four  books  of  Kings,  Tobias,  Hester,  Esdras, 

| two  books  of  Maccabees  and  the  twelve  minor 
] prophets.  Thirteenth  century. 

Legenda  Sanctorum . Imperfect.  Sixty-one  leaves 
I recovered  by  the  late  Dr.  J.  B.  Sheppard  from  the 
bindings  of  the  registers  of  the  archdeacon’s  court. 

I A few  of  the  large  illuminated  initials  contain  repre- 
1 sentations  of  saints.  Twelfth  century. 

Lessons  in  the  week  and  on  some  Sundays  and  Holy 
j days  for  monastic  use.  Fourteenth  century. 

Miscellaneous.  Contains  amongst  many  other  items 
| Pope  Gregory  IX.’s  statute  concerning  Peter’s  Pence, 

| and  a treatise  on  the  duties  of  the  priesthood,  called 
; Pars  oculi  sacerdotum.  Fourteenth  century. 

Miscellaneous,  (a)  Summa  que  dicitur  pars  oculi 
sacerdotum  ; dextra  oculi  sacerdotum , sinistra  pars  oculi 

403 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

sacerdotum . ( b ) Tractatus  de  septem  sacramentis , de 

septem  virtutibus  se'ptem  peccatis  mortalibus , ^ decern 
prceceptis.  (V)  Instructiones  beati  Gregorii  quo  modo 
venerandi  sunt  sancti . Thirteenth  century. 

A short  chronicle,  beginning  with  the  birth  of  King 
Edward  III  and  ending  with  the  destruction  of  the 
campanile  at  Canterbury  by  an  earthquake  in  1382. 

Fourteenth  century. 

Miscellaneous.  Contains  (a)  rents  of  Christ  Church 
in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  ; (b)  Diver- 
sorum  Patrum  sententis  de  primatu  Romane  Ecclesie 
Twelfth  century.  (V)  Latin  sermons  (forty).  This 
book  belonged  to  the  notorious  Roger  Norris  who  was 
prior  of  Christ  Church  1188-1190.  ( See  chapter  vi, 

p-  •) 

Liber  precum  cuiusdam  monachi  Cantuariensis. 

Early  fifteenth  century. 

Roger  de  St.  Elphege.  Liber  sermonum  et  collectio 
de  multis . The  commonplace  book  of  Prior  Roger  of 
St.  Elphege,  1258-1263. 

Duns  Scotus.  Super  primum , secundum  et  tertium 
librum , Sententiarum  cum  collationibus  eusdem. 

Fourteenth  century. 

- — - Qusstiones  Theologies . Thirteenth  century. 

T abula  Speculi  Historialis.  Fifteenth  century. 

William  of  Norwich.  A Latin  commentary  on 
Isaiah.  Twelfth  century. 

C.  E.  W. 


4°4 


CHAPTER  XVIII 


THE  STAINED  GLASS  WINDOWS  AND  MURAL 
PAINTINGS 

In  spite  of  all  the  loss  sustained  by  storm  and  tempest, 

(Reformers  and  Puritans,  and  what  Gostling  calls  “ the 
wicked  wantonness  of  unlucky  boys,”  the  windows  of 

!the  cathedral  church  still  retain  many  splendid  speci- 
mens of  ancient  stained  glass.1  From  William  of 
Malmesbury’s  description  of  the  church  in  the  twelfth 
century  it  would  seem  that  the  “ glorious  choir  ” of 
Anselm  and  Conrad  was  adorned  with  painted  windows ; 
but  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  any  of  this  glass  can  have 
survived  the  great  fire  of  1174.  Mr.  Westlake,  in  his 
History  oj  Design  in  Painted  Glass , is  of  opinion  that 

[the  earliest  glass  now  in  the  cathedral  is  in  the  windows 
of  the  clerestory  of  the  choir,  and  that  it  was  executed 

I very  early  in  the  thirteenth  century. 

There  are  forty-nine  single-light  windows  in  the 
clerestory,  each  of  which  was  once  filled  with  two 
figures,  one  above  the  other.  With  the  exception  of 
five  in  the  apse,  these  windows  all  illustrated  our 
Lord’s  ancestry,  beginning  with  the  Almighty  and 
1 Alterations  made  between  1541  and  1544  : 

To  the  glasier  “ For  emending  and  altering  a window  in  Oxenforth 


styple,  blown  down  by  the  wynde,  5s. 

“ For  putting  out  of  scriptures  and  altering  of  part  of  the  wyndowes 
in  the  body  of  the  church  over  the  south  syde,  I5d. 

“ For  emending  of  a window  beside  Arundel  stylpe,  6d. 

“ For  altering  and  emending  a window  in  St.  Michel’s  yele,  I5d. 

“ For  emending  of  a window  in  our  lady  chappell,  6d. 

; “ For  emending  of  two  casements  over  the  high  altar,  I5d. 

“ For  mendyng  the  windows  and  casements  where  the  shryne  was  and 
in  our  lady  Chapel,  iiis. 

4°5 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Adam,  in  the  westernmost  window  on  the  north  side, 
and  ending  with  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary  and  our 
Lord  in  the  corresponding  window  on  the  south  side. 
Only  sixteen  of  these  windows  now  retain  their  ancient 
glass  ; the  rest  were  designed  and  given  by  George 
Austin,  Junior,  about  the  middle  of  the  last  century. 

In  general  treatment  the  clerestory  windows  at 
Canterbury  bear  a remarkably  close  resemblance  to 
ancient  glass  in  the  cathedral  churches  of  Chartres, 
Rheims,  and  Sens ; indeed,  Mr.  Westlake  goes  so 
far  as  to  say  that  “the  subjects  might  in  some  cases 
be  exchanged  without  exciting  comment  from 
the  spectators.” 1 The  five  windows  in  the  apse 
contained  the  following  subjects  arranged  in  triple 
tiers  : 

i 

Moses. 

Striking  the  Rock. 

Giving  the  Law. 

3 

The  Ascension. 

The  Crucifixion. 

The  Nativity. 

The  Baptism. 

The  Beheading  of  St.  John  the  Baptist. 

(?) 

These  windows  were  destroyed  by  the  Puritans  in 
the  seventeenth  century.  The  present  glass  was  designed 
by  the  late  George  Austin. 

In  the  side  aisles  of  the  choir  are  fourteen  large 
round-headed  windows  (excluding  those  in  the  apses 
of  the  transepts),  twelve  of  which  formerly  contained 
1 History  of  Design  in  Painted  Glass , London,  1881. 

406 


2 

The  Transfiguration. 
The  Agony. 

The  Magi. 

4 

The  Resurrection. 
The  Flagellation. 
The  Flight  in  Egypt. 

S 


STAINED  GLASS 

glass  illustrating  the  life  and  teaching  of  our  Lord. 
When  the  whole  series  was  complete  the  life  of  Christ 
was  set  forth  from  the  Annunciation  to  the  Resurrec- 
tion, the  chief  subjects  being  contained  in  central 
medallions,  flanked  by  others  in  which  were  depicted 
certain  types  and  illustrations. 

The  series  commenced  in  the  western  window  of 
the  north  choir  aisle  and  ended  in  the  corresponding 
window  on  the  south  side.  A description  of  the  sub- 
jects and  types  portrayed  in  these  great  “ theological 
windows,”  together  with  the  Latin  inscriptions  which 
surrounded  them,  is  preserved  among  the  Chapter 
archives.  This  MS.  (C  246),  which  was  written  early 
in  the  fourteenth  century,  was  transcribed  by  Somner, 
who  printed  it  in  the  appendix  to  his  Antiquities  of 
Canterbury  ; it  has  also  been  edited  by  Dr.  M.  R. 
James  for  the  Cambridge  Antiquarian  Society.  The 
original  arrangement  of  the  glass  was  as  follows  : 


WINDOW  I 

The  Conception  and  Nativity 


Subject 

The  Annunciation 
Mary  meeting  Elizabeth 


The  Nativity 
Mary 

The  Shepherds 


Illustrations 

Moses  and  the  burning  bush. 

Gideon  and  the  fleece. 

Mercy  and  Truth  meeting  together. 
Righteousness  and  Peace  kissing  each 
other. 

Nebuchadnezzar’s  dream  of  the  image 
and  stone. 

Moses  and  the  rod  that  budded. 
David. 

Habbakuk. 


WINDOW  II 
The  Infancy 


The  Magi — 

(1)  Following  the  star 

(2)  Before  Herod 


Balaam 

Isaiah. 

Jeremiah. 

Christ  and  the  Gentiles. 
The  Exodus. 


4°9 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 


(3)  Adoring  Christ 

(4)  Their  Dream 

The  Presentation  in  the 
Temple 

The  Flight  into  Egypt 

The  Slaughter  of  the 
Innocents 


Joseph  with  his  brethren  and  Egyptians. 
Queen  of  Sheba  before  Solomon. 
Jeroboam  and  the  Man  of  God. 

Lot  escaping  from  Sodom. 

Abraham  and  Melchizedech. 

Presentation  of  Samuel. 

David’s  flight  to  Nob. 

Elijah’s  flight  from  Ahab  and  Jezebel. 
Saul  slaughters  the  priests. 

Slaughter  of  tribe  of  Benjamin  in  Gibeon. 


WINDOW  III 


Among  the  Doctors.  Baptism.  Temptation 


Jesus  among  the  Doctors 

The  Baptism  of  our  Lord 

The  Temptation 
(Greed  and  Pride) 
(Desire) 


Moses  and  Jethro  with  the  people. 
Daniel  among  the  Elders. 

Noah  and  the  Dove. 

Israelites  crossing  the  Red  Sea. 

Eve  taking  the  apple. 

Eve  eating  it. 

Adam  and  Eve  eating  the  apple. 
David  and  Goliath. 


WINDOW  IV 


Life  of  Christ 


The  Call  of  Nathanael 

The  Marriage  Feast  at  Cana 
(six  waterpots) 

The  Apostles  fishing 

Jesus  reading  the  Law 

The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

Jesus  cleansing  the  leper 


Adam  and  Eve  with  fig-leaves. 

Israelites  under  the  Law. 

Six  ages  of  the  world. 

Six  ages  of  man. 

St.  Peter  with  the  Church  of  the  Jews. 
St.  Paul  with  the  Church  of  the  Gentiles. 
Esdras  reading  the  Law. 

St.  Gregory  ordaining  readers. 

The  Doctors  of  the  Church. 

Moses  receives  the  Law. 

Paul  baptizing. 

Elisha  and  Naaman. 


WINDOW  V 
Life  of  Christ  ( continued) 

Jesus  casting  out  devils  Angel  binding  the  Devil. 
Mary  anointing  His  feet  Drusiana’s  acts  of  charity. 
Jesus  with  Mary  and  Martha  Peter  in  the  ship. 

John  reading. 

Rachel  and  Leah. 


4IO 


Enoch  from  a window  in  the  Clerestory 


The  Rich  Men  of  this  World 
Window  II.  20 


Jesus  plucking  the  ears  of 
corn 

The  Woman  of  Samaria — 

(1)  At  the  well 

(2)  Bringing  the  people 
tojjesus 


Apostles  grinding  corn. 

Peter  and  Paul  with  the  nations. 

Moses  with  the  Pentateuch. 

Church  of  the  Gentiles. 

Rebekah  meeting  Abraham’s  servant. 
Rachel  meeting  Jacob. 


4J3 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 


WINDOW  VI 

Parables.  Feeding  the  Multitude 


Jesus  conversing  with  Gentiles  seeking  the  Gospel. 

Apostles  Pharisees  rejecting  the  Gospel. 


Pharisees  rejecting  Jesus. 

Pharisees  tempting  Him. 

The  rich  of  this  world. 

Job,  Daniel,  and  Noah. 

Noah’s  sons  and  the  Church 
Virginity,  continence,  and  matrimony, 

4H 


The  Parable  of  the  Sower 
Window  II.  21 

Parable  of  the  Sower — 

(1)  Fowls  of  air 

(2)  The  thorns 

(3)  Good  ground 
Parable  of  the  Leaven 

Parable  of  the  Net 


STAINED  GLASS 

Parable  of  the  Harvest  The  Last  Judgment. 

Miracle  of  the  five  loaves  Christ  as  priest  and  king, 

and  two  fishes  Moses  and  the  Synagogue. 

The  Church  with  John. 


f vr  to  n>  SAL  ET  VR  N?  RE  SPIC I AT  BGTVft-  PK0|9l 


Sic  VI  /l^TpsYEhl  PER  hfiKOD  IS  KfGbJA  Sfl&E(. 


WINDOW  VII 


T he  Destruction  of  Sodom 
W indoiv  II.  20 


Life  of  Christ  {continued).  The  Lost  Sheep 


Jesus  healing  the  Canaanite 
woman’s  daughter 
Jesus  healing  the  man  at  the 
Pool  of  Bethesda 
The  Transfiguration 


Church  of  the  Gentiles. 

Peter’s  vision. 

Moses  with  the  Pentateuch. 

Christ  baptizing. 

Angels  clothing  the  risen  dead. 
Angels  leading  the  righteous  to  God. 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Peter  and  the  fish  with  the  Christ  goes  up  to  Jerusalem 
_ Penny  The  Crucifixion. 

Jesus  and  the  little  child  Monts  washing  the  feet  of  the  poor. 

. . Kings  obedient  to  Peter  and  Paul. 

The  lost  sheep  Christ  on  the  Cross. 

Christ  despoiling  Hell. 


The  Three  Wise  Men  Riding 
Window  II,  2 


WINDOW  VIII 


Parable  of  the  Forgiven  Servant 


Parable  of  the  master  and 
the  debtor  servant — 

(i)  He  forgives  the  debt  Peter  and  Paul  giving  absolution. 

Christ  giving  absolution. 

416 


STAINED  GLASS 


(2)  The  servant  strildng 
his  fellow  servant 

(3)  Servant  given  to  the 
tormentors 


Stoning  of  Paul. 

Stoning  of  Stephen. 
Wicked  cast  into  Hell. 
Destruction  of  Jerusalem. 


WINDOW  IX 


Parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan 


Parable  of  the  Good 
Samaritan — 

(1)  The  man  falls  among 
thieves 


(2)  Priest  and  Levite 
pass  by 


(3)  Samaritan  taking  the 
wounded  man  to  the  inn 


Creation  of  Adam. 

Creation  of  Eve. 

Adam  and  Eve  eating  the  apple. 
Adam  and  Eve  cast  out  of  Eden. 
Moses  and  Aaron  before  Pharaoh. 
The  Passover. 

The  Exodus. 

The  golden  calf. 

Giving  of  the  Law. 

The  brazen  serpent. 

Peter  accused  by  the  maidservant. 
The  Crucifixion. 

The  Entombment. 

The  Resurrection. 

The  angel  speaks  to  the  Maries. 


WINDOW  X 


Raising  of  the  Dead.  Entry  into  Jerusalem 


Raising  of  Jairus’s  daughter 

Raising  of  the  widow’s  son 

Raising  of  Lazarus 

Triumphal  entry  into 
Jerusalem — 

(1)  Jesus  sending  for  the 
ass 

(2)  Disciples  bringing  the 
ass  and  colt 

(3)  Children  meeting 
Jesus 


Abigail  meeting  David. 
Constantine’s  repentance. 
Solomon  worshipping  images  and 
repenting. 

Repentance  of  Theophilus. 

Jonah  under  the  gourd. 
Repentance  of  Mary  of  Egypt. 


Holy  Ghost  in  likeness  of  a dove  between 
God  and  man. 

Jesus  between  Peter  and  Paul. 

Peter  bringing  Jewish  Church. 

Paul  bringing  Gentile  Church. 

Isaiah. 

David. 

2 D 


417 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 


I.  Balaam ; 2.  Magi  riding;  3.  Isaiah;  4.  Pharaoh;  5.  Herod  and 
Mavi ; 6.  Gentiles;  7.  Solomon  and  Qjieen  Sheba;  8*  Magi 
Offering;  gj  Joseph;  10.  Sodom;  II.  Magi's  Dream;  12.  Jero- 
boam; 13.  Samuel;  1 4.  Christ  presented ; 15.  Pharisees  rejecting 
Christ;  16.  Virginity  ; 17.  Just  Men  ; 18.  Noah's  three  Sons  ; 
ig.  Sower  and  Ihorns;  20.  Rich  Men;  21*  Sower  and  Birds. 


Window  II 


s 


■ 


5 


!l 


Medallions  I to  14  are  the  originals, 
were  as  follows : 

15.  Melchizedech  and  Abraham. 

16.  David  and  Doeg’s  flight. 

17.  Flight  into  Egypt. 

18.  Elijah’s  flight. 

418 


The  remaining  ones,  now  lost, 

19.  Saul’s  slaughter  of  Priests. 

20.  Slaughter  of  the  Innocents. 

21.  Slaughter  of  Gibeonites. 


STAINED  GLASS 


I.  Jesus  and  Doctors ; 2.  Moses  and  Jethro;  3.  Daniel;  4.  Miraculous 
draught  of  fishes;  5*  Noah;  6.  Ages  of  Man;  J.  Marriage  in 
Cana;  8.  Six  Ages  of  World;  9.  Peter  in  Jewish  Church; 
IO.  Nathanael ; II.  Pharisees  reject  Christ ; Gentiles  seeking  Christ 

Window  III 


Medallions  1,  2,  3,  5 are  the  originals.  The  remaining  ones,  now  lost, 
were  as  follows : 

4.  Christ’s  Baptism.  9.  Eve  Eating. 

6.  Crossing  the  Red  Sea.  10.  The  Temptation  (3rd). 

7.  The  Temptation  (1st  and  2nd)  II.  Adam  and  Eve  Eating. 

8.  Eve  taking  the  apple.  12.  David  and  Goliath. 

Note.  The  Roman  figures  in  the  centre  of  the  circles  refer  to  the 
window  from  which  the  medallion  was  taken. 

419 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 


WINDOW  XI 

Last  Supper.  Betrayal.  Scourging 


The  Last  Supper 

Jesus  washing  the  Apostles’ 
feet 

The  Betrayal 
The  Flagellation 


David 

The  falling  of  the  manna. 
Abraham  washing  the  angel’s  feet. 
Laban  washing  the  camel’s  feet. 
Joseph  being  sold. 

Joab  kissing  and  killing  Abner. 

Job  with  boils. 

Elisha  mocked  by  the  children. 
WINDOW  XII 


Crucifixion.  Resurrection 


Christ  carrying  the  Cross 
Christ  on  the  Cross 
The  Descent  from  the  Cross 
Christ  in  the  tomb 

Christ  harrowing  Hell 
The  Resurrection 
Mary  and  the  Angel 


Isaac  carrying  the  wood. 

Widow  of  Zarephath  gathering  sticks. 
The  brazen  serpent. 

The  golden  calf  burned. 

Death  of  Abel. 

Elisha  restoring  the  boy  to  life. 

The  Passover  mark  written  in  blood. 
Samson  and  Delilah. 

Jonah  in  the  whale’s  belly. 

David  rescuing  the  sheep. 

Samson  with  the  gates  of  Gaza. 

Jonah  cast  up  by  the  whale. 

David  let  down  from  the  window. 
Joseph  drawn  up  from  the  pit. 

Lion  bringing  its  young  to  life.1 


Of  these  windows,  Nos.  II  and  III  alone  retain  their 
ancient  glass.  No.  I was  blocked  up  about  1663  when 
a staircase  to  the  organ-loft  was  erected  ; but  inasmuch 
as  the  glass  in  this  window  had  reference  to  St.  Mary 
the  Virgin,  it  is  probable  that  it  had  been  already 
destroyed.  So  that  the  windows  which  originally 
came  second  and  third  in  the  series  are  at  the  present 
time  the  first  and  second  of  the  north  choir  aisle. 

Several  medallions  in  both  these  windows  contain 
glass  which  has  been  transferred  from  others  of  the  same 
series,  and  the  present  arrangement  will  be  best  under- 
stood by  the  aid  of  the  plans  on  the  preceding  pages. 

1 For  tbis  convenient  summary  of  subjects  we  are  indebted  t( 
Mr.  F.  S.  Parry. 

420 


■ 

STAINED  GLASS 

It  will  be  noticed  that  several  of  the  scenes  illustrate 
the  parables  of  our  Lord,  which  (with  the  exception 
of  the  three  peculiar  to  St.  Luke’s  Gospel)  were  rarely 
made  use  of  by  mediaeval  artists  of  the  Western  Church. 

Dr.  James  traces  a connection  between  the  types 
in  these  windows  and  those  illustrated  in  a collection 
of  types  called  Pictor  in  Carmine , made  late  in  the 
twelfth  century,  and  also  with  those  in  the  series  of 
thirteenth-century  wall-paintings  which  once  adorned 
the  stalls  at  Peterborough ; and  he  suggests  that 
possibly  Benedict,  prior  of  Christ  Church,  who  became 
Abbot  of  Peterborough  in  1177,  may  have  com- 
municated copies  of  the  Peterborough  legends  to  his 
old  monastery.1 

The  Triforium  Windows 

The  six  windows  with  trefoiled  heads,  three  in  the 
north  and  three  in  the  south  choir  aisle,  are  filled  with 
ancient  glass  of  great  beauty,  but  much  of  it  has  been 
removed  thither  from  other  parts  of  the  church,  and 
the  arrangement  is  so  confused  that  the  subjects  cannot 
in  all  cases  be  determined. 

In  the  westernmost  window  of  the  north  aisle  only 
the  subject  contained  in  the  lower  medallion  to  the 
right  can  be  made  out.  This  represents  the  story 
|l  related  by  William  of  Canterbury,  of  Adam,  a forester, 
,,,  j who  had  caught  three  men  who  had  slain  a deer,  one 
|j  Of  whom,  “ casting  a dart,  pierced  the  throat  of  his 

] assailant.”  The  keeper  is  represented  as  falling  back- 
wards, and  the  inscription  reads,  “ Fur  fugiens  guttur 
perforat  insequentis  ” (“  The  fleeing  thief  pierces 
the  throat  of  his  pursuer  ”).  It  is,  however,  satisfac- 
tory to  learn  that  “ the  Martyr  to  whom  the  Lord 
of  Power  had  granted  power  ordained  that  in  three 
weeks  the  unfortunate  man  should  be  cured  at 
Canterbury.” 

1 “ The  Twelve  Theological  Windows  of  Canterbury  Cathedral.” 
M.  R.  James  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Cambridge  Antiquarian  Society, 

1901,  p.  11. 


421 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

In  the  central  window  the  only  intelligible  medallion 
is  the  lower  one  to  the  left,  which  represents  the  siege 
of  Canterbury  by  the  Danes.  In  the  third  window 
the  two  lower  medallions  depict  scenes  in  the  life  of 
St.  Alphege,  viz.  his  capture  by  the  Danes  (left)  and 
his  murder  (right). 

The  three  corresponding  windows  in  the  south  aisle 
contain  glass  taken  probably  from  a window  in  the 
Trinity  Chapel,  since  all  the  subjects  relate  to  the 
miracles  of  St.  Thomas.  Five  medallions  illustrate  the 
story  of  William  Kellett,  a carpenter  who  wounded 
himself  with  his  axe  and  was  healed  by  the  saint.  The 
upper  roundel  of  the  third  window  shows  the  accident ; 
the  corresponding  one  in  the  first  (western)  window 
the  bandaging  of  the  wound  ; the  lower  one  to  the 
left  the  carpenter’s  vision  ; the  lower  medallion  to  the 
right  in  the  first  window  his  recovery  ; and  that  to  the 
right  in  the  second  window  his  joyful  departure  from 
the  city. 

In  the  north  transept  the  great  rose  window  in  the 
gable  retains  a portion  of  its  ancient  glass.  In  the 
centre  are  two  figures  representing  respectively  Moses 
with  the  Tables  of  the  Law  and  the  Jewish  Church 
with  the  Levitical  books.  The  heads  of  these  figures 
are  modern  restorations.  Around  the  central  medallion 
are  figures  representing  the  cardinal  virtues.  In  the 
window  of  the  northern  apse  of  the  transept,  where 
the  altar  of  St.  Martin  formerly  stood,  one  panel  of 
ancient  glass  remains,  illustrating  the  well-known 
legend  of  the  saint  dividing  his  cloak  with  the  beggar. 

Passing  to  the  Trinity  (St.  Thomas’s)  Chapel  we  find 
it  lighted  by  six  windows  on  the  north  and  six  on  the 
south  side.  All  were  once  filled  with  scenes  taken  from 
the  stories  of  the  miracles  of  St.  Thomas,  collected  by 
Benedict  of  Peterborough  and  William  of  Canterbury, 
both  of  whom  were  custodians  of  the  saint’s  tomb 
in  the  crypt.  In  the  north  aisle  only  the  third, 
fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  windows  retain  portions  of 
422 


STAINED  GLASS 

their  ancient  glass ; but  there  have  been  consider- 
able “ restorations.”  Thus,  in  the  third  window 
(counting  from  the  west)  four  of  the  medallions,  eight 
of  the  upper  roundels  and  part  of  the  border  are 
original.  The  remainder  is  the  work  of  the  late 
S.  Caldwell,  of  Canterbury,  from  old  fragments.1 
In  the  next  window  (towards  the  east)  four  of  the 
medallions  are  filled  with  modern  copies  of  the  story 
of  Willliam  Kellett  related  above.  Three  scenes  in 
the  fifth  window  and  six  lengths  of  the  border  are  new. 
In  the  head  of  the  window  is  a representation  of  a 
vision  which  Benedict  tells  us  he  saw  himself.  The 
martyr  is  seen  coming  forth  from  the  shrine  in  full 
pontifical  robes  and  making  his  way  to  an  altar,  as  if 
to  celebrate  mass.  “ The  medallion,”  says  Austin, 
“ is  the  more  interesting  from  being  an  undoubted 
work  of  the  thirteenth  century  ; and  having  been 
designed  for  a position  immediately  opposite  to  and 
within  a few  yards  of  the  shrine  itself,  and  occupying 
the  place  of  honour  in  the  largest  and  most  beautiful 
window,  without  doubt  represents  the  main  features 
of  the  shrine  faithfully.”  2 

In  the  easternmost  window  on  the  north  side  no 
less  than  nine  of  the  medallions  contain  modern 
replicas  of  scenes  which  occur  elsewhere  in  this  window 
or  in  the  one  last  mentioned.3 

Perhaps  the  quaintest  group  in  this  window  is  that 
which  depicts  the  story  of  Robert  of  Rochester,  a 

1 In  1894  S.  Caldwell  was  paid  .£41  10s.  for  making  “ six  figure  lights, 
also  scrolling  and  border  lights  with  fragments  of  old  glass  to  complete 
the  window  on  the  north  side  of  the  Trinity  Chapel.” 

2 See  “ The  Cathedral  Church  of  Canterbury,”  London,  G.  Bell 
& Son,  1896. 

3 £105  7s.  6d.  was  spent  on  this  window  in  1855.  The  work  com- 
prised “ Releading  and  re-storing  the  missing  portions  of  the  medallions 
of  the  upper  part  of  the  window  with  old  glass,”  and  the  making  of  “ nine 
medallions  of  new  glass  to  complete  the  old  subjects,  six  lights  of  ground- 
work new,  and  six  lengths  of  border,  and  two  corner  lights,  also  new 
glass,  at  30s.  per  foot,  in  all  5 ft.  10  in.  by  7 ft.  3 in.  = 41  sq.  ft.  3J  in.” 
“ Treasurers’  Vouchers,”  sub  anno. 

423 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

naughty  and  cruel  boy  who,  as  Benedict  tells  us,  when 
out  stoning  frogs  in  the  Medway  with  some  wicked 
companions,  slipped  into  the  river  and  was  drowned, 
but  who  by  the  efficacy  of  the  saint’s  blood  mixed 
with  water  was  afterwards  restored  to  life.  The  first 
medallion  shows  the  boy  disappearing  in  the  water 
beside  three  large  green  frogs.  In  the  next  the 
other  boys  are  seen  telling  the  mother  of  the  acci- 
dent. She  exclaims,  “ Gracious  Thomas,  Martyr  of 
God,  restore  to  me  my  son.”  In  the  third  scene 
the  grief-stricken  parents  are  watching  their  son’s 
corpse  being  drawn  out  of  the  river  by  a man  with  an 
iron  hook.  Unfortunately,  the  medallions  which  com- 
plete this  story  have  been  destroyed. 

Nine  compartments  in  this  window  illustrate  a 
marvellous  succession  of  miracles  which  were  wrought 
in  the  family  of  one  Jordan,  a distinguished  knight  who 
had  been  an  intimate  friend  of  Archbishop  Becket. 
First,  the  family  nurse  dies,  and  her  funeral  is  depicted, 
then  the  knight’s  little  boy  of  ten.  Fortunately, 
twenty  pilgrims  arrive  that  day  at  the  house,  and  the 
father  borrows  some  of  the  “ Saint’s  water.”  In  the 
next  scene  the  father  is  pouring  the  wonder-working 
mixture  between  the  clenched  lips  of  his  son.  At  the 
third  draught  a spot  of  colour  showed  itself  upon  the 
cheek  of  the  boy,  who,  as  Benedict  tells  us,  now  opened 
one  eye,  and  said,  “ Why  are  you  weeping,  father  ? 
Why  are  you  crying,  lady  ? The  blessed  martyr 
Thomas  has  restored  me  to  you.”  The  father  then 
puts  into  his  son’s  hands  four  pieces  of  silver  to  be 
offered  at  the  martyr’s  shrine  before  mid-Lent.  In 
the  next  scene  the  boy  is  seen  upon  a couch  feeding 
himself  with  a spoon.  But  the  vow  is  forgotten. 
A visit  of  the  Warden  of  the  Cinque  Ports  puts  it  out 
of  the  heads  of  the  parents.  The  eldest  son  now  dies 
and  twenty  of  the  household  fall  sick.  A reminder  of 
the  forgotten  vow  is  conveyed  to  the  knight  by  a 
leper,  who  has  been  warned  in  a dream  to  undertake 

424 


STAINED  GLASS 

the  errand.  In  the  last  scene  of  the  series  we  see  the 
father  offering  a large  bowl  full  of  gold  and  silver  pieces, 
and  the  mother  leading  by  the  hand  the  boy,  now  quite 
well.  In  the  telling  of  this  story  the  chief  points 
which  the  monastic  artists  were  anxious  to  emphasise 
were  doubtless  “ the  extreme  danger  of  delaying  the 
performance  of  a vow  under  whatever  circumstances 
made,  the  expiation  sternly  required  by  the  saint, 
and  the  satisfaction  with  which  the  martyr  viewed 
money- offerings  made  at  the  shrine.”  1 

Passing  to  the  south  aisle  of  the  Trinity  Chapel,  we 
find  in  the  easternmost  window  sixteen  medallions,  of 
which  no  less  than  eight  were  added  by  Mr.  Caldwell 
in  1893  from  fragments  of  old  glass  ; as  also  were 
portions  of  the  bordering  and  the  spandrels  at  the 
bottom.  The  place  occupied  by  the  new  medallions 
was  perhaps  once  filled  by  the  scenes  relating  to  the 
stories  of  William  Kellett,  the  carpenter,  and  of  Adam 
the  forester,  now  in  the  triforium  windows.2 

The  second  window  is  plain.  The  third  retains 
only  part  of  the  bordering.  The  fourth  is  plain.  The 
fifth  is  filled  with  fragments  of  ancient  glass  which 
were  arranged  by  Mr.  Caldwell  as  a memorial  window 
in  1906.  The  inscription  beneath  the  window  reads  : 
“ This  ancient  glass  was  recovered  and  replaced  by 
Edward  Moore,  D.D.,  Canon  of  this  Cathedral,  as  a 
memorial  to  his  dearly  loved  wife,  Annie  Moore,  who 
ciied  December  27,  1906.” 

The  sixth  window  has  twenty-two  compartments. 
The  stained  glass  from  twelve  of  them  was  removed 
(probably  early  in  the  last  century)  to  windows  in  the 
north  and  south  transepts.  In  1897  it  was  brought 
back  and  refixed  by  Mr.  Caldwell,  who  also  made  six 
medallions  partly  from  fragments  of  old  glass  to  fill 

1 George  Austin,  quoted  in  the  “ Cathedral  Church  of  Canter- 
bury,” G.  Bell  & Son,  London,  1896. 

2 See  “Notes  on  the  Painted  Glass  in  Canterbury  Cathedral,” 
Emily  Williams,  Aberdeen,  1897,  p.  39. 

425 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

up  the  vacant  spaces*  The  principal  scenes  relate  to 
the  stories  of  Godfrey  of  Winchester,  who  was  cured 
of  a fever  by  the  holy  water,  and  of  William  of 
Gloucester,  who  was  buried  by  a fall  of  earth  when 


I.  The  Earth  falls  on  William  of  Gloucester 
Window  I.  13,  Trinity  Chapel,  South  Side 


making  some  excavations  for  an  aqueduct  at  Church- 
down. 

Of  the  five  windows  in  the  corona,  the  central  one 
only  retains  its  ancient  glass*  Here  there  are  five 
principal  scenes,  taken  from  Holy  Scripture,  each  being 
surrounded  by  four  types.  The  principal  subjects 
represent  the  Crucifixion,  the  Entombment,  the 


STAINED  GLASS 

Resurrection,  the  Ascension,  and  Pentecost.  Of  these 
the  Crucifixion  and  Resurrection  are  wholly  modern, 
and  the  Ascension  partly  so.  They  were  executed  by 
Mr.  Caldwell,  from  designs  in  the  possession  of  Mr. 


George  Austin,  partly  from  fragments  of  old  glass.  So 
nearly  do  the  new  medallions  resemble  the  thirteenth- 
century  glass  that  they  were  taken  to  be  parts  of  the 
original  window  by  Mr.  Westlake,  who  gives  an  engrav- 
ing of  the  “ Crucifixion  ” in  his  “ History  of  Design  in 
Painted  Glass.”  In  the  eighteenth  century,  and  earlier 

427 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

probably,  there  was  a little  casement  in  the  lower  right- 
hand  corner  of  this  window,  which  hung  upon  hooks 
which  still  remain.  Horace  Walpole  refers  to  this 
casement  in  a letter  to  Miss  Berry  in  1794,  where  he 


3.  A Dismal  Groan  is  heard 

says,  “ If  you  should  come  to  Canterbury  again,  make 
the  cicerone  shew  you  a pane  of  glass  in  the  east  window 
which  does  open  and  exhibits  a most  delicious  view  of 
the  ruins  of  St.  Austins.”  1 

In  addition  to  the  splendid  thirteenth-century  glass 
in  the  choir,  Trinity  Chapel  and  corona,  the  cathedral 
1 Walpole’s  “Correspondence,”  vol.  ix.  p.  441. 


428 


STAINED  GLASS 

also  possessed  much  fine  fifteenth-century  glass  in  the 
nave  and  western  transepts ; but  of  this  comparatively 
little  now  remains.  The  earliest  is  contained  in  the 
head  of  the  great  west  window,  where,  under  the 


point  of  the  arch  are  the  arms  of  King  Richard  II 
impaling  those  of  his  patron  saint,  Edward  the  Con- 
fessor. In  the  next  tier  are  six  small  figures  between  the 
arms  of  Anne  of  Bohemia  (north)  and  Isabella  of 
France  (south),  the  successive  consorts  of  Richard  II. 
This  glass  was  inserted  probably  in  the  first  decade 
of  the  fifteenth  century. 

429 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

The  next  two  tiers  were  filled  originally  with 
saints  and  apostles.  Now  they  are  replaced  by  figures 
of  saints  and  bishops  brought  from  the  west  window 
of  the  Chapter-house.  Beneath  are  seven  kings,  viz. 


5.  William  is  hr  ought  out 


(from  right  to  left)  : Canute,  Edward  the  Confessor, 
Harold,  William  I,  William  II,  Henry  I and  Stephen. 
These  with  the  figures  in  the  next  tier  were  also  from 
the  chapter-house ; and  the  remaining  lights  are 
filled  with  glass  from  the  clerestory  of  the  choir  in 
1799. 

The  great  window  of  the  south-west  transept 

430 


STAINED  GLASS 

retains  portions  of  its  original  glass,  but  the  greater 
part  of  it  was  taken  from  the  windows  in  the  clerestory 
of  the  choir  transept  in  1799  when,  as  Hasted  informs 
us,  “ this  window  was  selected  and  arranged  by  Mr. 


A Lady  offering  a Coil  at  St.  Thomas's  Altar 
Window  VI.  21  ( South  Side  of  Trinity  Chapel) 


John  Simmonds,  one  of  the  vesturers  of  the  church, 
to  whom  the  arrangement  was  committed  by  the 
Dean  and  Chapter.”  1 Much  reglazing  was  done  to 
this  window  by  Messrs.  Austin  and  Caldwell  between 
1859  and  1897.2 

1 “ History  of  Kent,”  vol.  iv.  p.  529  note. 

2 The  new  glass  is  indicated  by  Miss  Willliams  in  her  “ Notes  on 
the  Painted  Glass,”  op.  cit. 

431 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

It  is,  however,  in  the  great  north  window  of  the 
“ Martyrdom  ” transept  that  the  best  fifteenth-century 
glass  is  to  be  found.  This  window  was  a gift  from 
King  Edward  IV  in  memory  of  his  ancestor,  Edward  I, 
whose  marriage  with  Margaret  of  France  was  celebrated 
at  the  cloister  door  close  by.  When  in  its  pristine 
condition  this  was  a magnificent  composition,  for 
which,  according  to  tradition,  the  Spanish  Ambassador 
to  the  Court  of  Queen  Elizabeth  offered  ten  thousand 
pounds.  Much  of  the  original  glass  was  wantonly 
destroyed  by  the  Puritans,  notably  by  Richard  Culmer, 
the  notorious  “ Blue  Dick  ” of  whose  proceedings  we 
have  given  some  account  in  a previous  chapter,  and 
there  are  good  reasons  for  believing  that  what  remains 
is  not  in  its  original  position.  We  will  first  describe 
the  present  arrangement  of  the  glass  and  then  attempt 
the  reconstruction  of  the  original  design. 

It  is  a seven-light  window,  with  a traceried  head 
comprising  thirty-six  compartments,  of  which  thirty- 
four  still  contain  little  full-length  figures,1  arranged 
in  three  rows,  the  topmost  representing  the  prophets, 
the  second  the  twelve  apostles,  and  the  third  fourteen 
ecclesiastics ; these  were  made  for  the  position  they 
now  occupy.  The  main  lights  are  divided  by  tran- 
soms into  three  tiers.  The  arrangement  of  the  glass 
at  the  present  time  is  as  follows  : 

In  the  uppermost  tier  (from  left  to  right)  are 
the  following  coats-of-arms  : (i)  Christ  Church ; 
(2)  Guldeford  and  Halden ; (3)  Thomas  Becket, 
impaling  the  See  of  Canterbury ; (4)  the  Holy  Trinity  ; 
(5)  Edward  the  Confessor  ; (6)  Viscount  Wells  (part 
only),  the  husband  of  Cecilia,  daughter  of  Edward  IV ; 
(7)  an  archbishop  (modern). 

In  the  middle  tier  are  the  following  kneeling 
figures  : (1)  Richard  Duke  of  York ; (2)  Edward 

Prince  of  Wales  ; (3)  King  Edward  IV  ; (4)  the  arms 

1 Nos.  I to  10,  owing  to  the  exigencies  of  space,  are  only  half-length 
figures. 

432 


STAINED  GLASS 

of  King  Henry  VII  over  two  small  figures,  viz.  a king 
in  armour,  with  “ Mauritius  55  underneath,  and  a 
female  figure  with  helmet  and  sword ; (5)  Queen 

Elizabeth  (Woodville)  ; (6)  the  Princesses  Elizabeth, 
Cecilia  and  Anne  ; (7)  The  Princesses  Katherine  and 
Mary. 

In  the  lowest  tier  are  the  following  coats-of-arms  : 
(1)  Thomas  Becket ; (2)  royal  arms ; (3)  the  arms  of 
an  archbishop  ; (4)  royal  arms  ; (5)  Scott  of  Scott’s 
Hall ; (6)  royal  arms  ; (7)  modern. 

From  Gost  ling’s  description  of  this  window  it  appears 
that  in  his  day  the  glass  occupied  very  much  the  same 
position  as  it  does  now.  But  from  Culmer’s  account  of 
his  misdoings  in  1643  we  know  that  prior  to  his 
fanatical  destruction  of  much  of  the  glass  in  this  window 
it  contained  (to  quote  his  own  words)  “ the  picture  of 
God  the  Father,  and  of  Christ  beside  a large  crucifix, 
and  the  pictures  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  form  of  a 
Dove,  and  seven  large  pictures  of  the  Virgin  Mary  in 
seven  glorious  appearances  . . . and  of  many  other 
Popish  Saints,  as  of  Saint  George,  etc.  But  their 
prime  Cathedral  Saint,  Archbishop  Thomas  Becket, 
was  most  rarely  pictured  in  that  window,  in  full  pro- 
portion, etc.  . . . And  at  the  foot  of  that  window 
was  a title  intimating  that  window  to  be  dedicated  to 
the  Virgin  Mary,  ‘ In  laudem  et  honorem  beatissime 
Virginis  Marie  Matris  Dei,’  etc.”  From  the  above 
description  Mr.  J.  Le  Couteur,  in  an  article  contributed 
to  the  Transactions  of  the  Kent  Archaeological  Society,1 
has  given  some  acute  suggestions  towards  solving  the 
problem  before  us.  Thus,  he  points  out  that  if  the 
band  of  royal  portraits  had  been  in  the  middle  tier 
(as  now),  with  the  figures  of  the  Virgin  in  the  lowest 
row,  the  picture  presented  would  be  meaningless,  not 
to  say  ridiculous ; but  if  in  the  original  composition 
“ the  Holy  Trinity  overshadowed  the  figures  of  the 

1 “ Notes  on  the  Great  North  Window  of  Canterbury  Cathedral,”  by 
J.  D.  Le  Couteur,  in  Archceologia  Gantiana , vol.  xxix. 

2 E 


433 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Virgin,  and  on  either  side  and  above  again  in  the 
tracery  were  nothing  but  saints,  there  would  be  both 
sense  and  reverence  in  the  window.” 

The  original  arrangement  of  the  glass  then,  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Le  Couteur,  whose  conclusions  we 
think  are  sound,  though  we  have  not  space  to  give 
all  the  evidence  upon  which  he  bases  them,  was  as 
follows  : 

Uppermost  tier  (from  left  to  right)  : (i)  Saint 

George  ; (2)  unknown  ; (3)  Saint  Thomas  of  Canter- 
bury ; (4)  the  Holy  Trinity ; (5)  St.  Edward  the 
Confessor  ; (6)  unknown  ; (7)  St.  Anthony. 

Middle  tier  : seven  large  pictures  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  Mary,  the  central  light  being  occupied  by  her 
coronation. 

Lowest  tier  : (1)  Richard  Duke  of  York  ; (2)  Edward 
Prince  of  Wales  ; (3)  King  Edward  IV ; (4)  the 
Crucifix  ; (5)  Queen  Elizabeth  (Woodville)  ; (6)  the 
Princesses  Elizabeth,  Cecilia,  and  Anne  ; (7)  the  Prin- 
cesses Katherine  and  Mary. 

Miss  Williams  in  her  “ Notes  on  the  Painted  Glass  in 
Canterbury  Cathedral”  says  of  the  royal  portraits  in 
this  window  : “ The  figures  have  all  new  heads,  and 
much  of  the  drapery  and  other  parts  have  been  restored 
by  Mr.  Caldwell,  under  the  direction  of  the  late  Mr. 
Harry  Austin,  the  surveyor  of  the  cathedral.  Parts  of 
the  original  figures  are  in  the  hall  at  the  Deanery,  having 
been  removed  there  in  1879.” 

The  only  window  which  retains  all  its  fifteenth- 
century  glass  is  the  east  window  of  the  Lady  Chapel. 
It  is  a very  delicate  piece  of  work,  the  groundwork  being 
nearly  devoid  of  colour,  in  order  to  admit  as  much  light 
as  possible,  since  the  chapel  is  dependent  upon  this 
window  for  its  light.  This  window  commemorates 
Archdeacon  Bourchier,  who  was  buried  in  the  chapel 
in  1495  ; in  the  upper  part  are  roundels  enclosing  a 
golden  falcon  and  the  Bourchier  knot.  In  the  lower 
part  are  the  knot  and  a stem  of  oak-leaf  fructed  for 

434 


STAINED  GLASS 

Woodstock,  and  a border  of  oak-leaves  surrounds  the 
window.  The  archdeacon’s  mother  was  a daughter 
of  Thomas  of  Woodstock,  Duke  of  Gloucester.  At  the 
base  are  five  coats-of-arms  arranged  chevronwise. 

Modern  Stained  Glass  Windows 

The  modern  windows,  with  a few  exceptions,  do  not 
merit  a detailed  notice,  and  a few  brief  notes  must  here 
suffice. 

A very  large  proportion  of  the  modern  stained  glass 
in  the  cathedral  was  designed  by  the  late  George 
Austin,  and  executed  by  his  assistant,  S.  Caldwell. 
Mr.  Austin  had  made  a special  study  of  the  thirteenth- 
century  glass  in  the  “ Becket  windows,”  and  as  a 
copyist  of  the  designs  in  these  windows  he  attained 
very  considerable  skill,  but  as  a colourist  he  failed 
lamentably,  his  windows  being  generally  exceedingly 
crude  and  garish. 

The  dean  and  chapter,  however,  seem  to  have 
reposed  the  utmost  confidence  in  Mr.  Austin’s  taste 
and  skill,  for  in  1855  they  not  only  allowed  him  to 
fill  all  the  clerestory  windows  of  the  nave  with  glass 
from  his  own  designs — which  with  great  generosity 
he  offered  to  do  at  his  own  cost — but  actually  gave 
him  the  exclusive  right  of  dealing  with  the  remaining 
windows  of  the  nave  in  his  own  way.  This  is  recorded 
in  a minute  of  chapter  of  the  above  date,  which  gives 
Austin  permission  to  fill  the  nave  windows  with  stained 
glass  ; and  inhibits  any  other  person  from  inserting 
a window  “ without  communication  first  with  Mr. 
Austin  and  his  consent  given.”  It  is  somewhat  curious, 
in  view  of  the  present  opinion  about  these  nave 
windows,  to  read  that  the  dean  and  chapter  conferred 
this  monopoly  on  the  artist  because  they  considered 
it  to  be  “ of  the  last  importance  to  the  beauty  of  the 
nave  that  all  windows  should  be  of  the  same  character 
I and  tone  of  colouring  ” ! Happily,  Mr.  Austin’s 
energies,  or  purse,  were  exhausted  before  his 

435 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

scheme  of  decoration  could  be  carried  out  in  its 
entirety. 

We  will  now  give  a brief  account  of  the  modern 
glass,  beginning  with  the  nave  : 

The  Nave . — Clerestory  windows  by  Austin,  c . 1855. 
Under  south-west  tower  a window  to  the  memory  of 
Sir  Robert  Inglis,  erected  at  the  cost  of  Archdeacon 
Harrison  in  1855,  by  Austin.  South  aisle  : 1 and  2, 
Te  Deum  windows,  by  Austin.  North  aisle  : under 
north-west  tower,  west  window  to  Mrs.  Harry  Austin  ; 
north  window  to  Geo.  Austin,  sen.,  died  1848.  Nos.  1 
and  2,  Te  Deum  windows  ; to  the  memory  of  H.  C. 
Kingsford,  died  1857;  all  by  Austin.  In  the  same 
aisle  a memorial  window  to  Dean  Stanley,  by  Messrs. 
Clayton  and  Bell,  by  whom  it  was  presented  to  the 
cathedral.  It  contains  figures  of  Archbishops  Odo, 
Stigand,  Lanfranc  and  Prior  Ernulf,  and  scenes  con- 
nected with  the  history  of  the  cathedral  ( c . 1881). 

South-west  Transept. — A window  in  the  west  wall 
by  Mr.  C.  Whall,  of  Chelsea,  in  1903,  a memorial  to 
the  late  Mr.  O.  Waterfield,  of  Nackington  House.  This 
is  the  best  modern  glass  in  the  cathedral. 

North-west  Transept . — A window  in  the  west  wall 
representing  scenes  in  the  life  of  Archbishop  Becket 
given  by  the  Rev.  Robert  Moore  ( c . 1867),  and  by 
Messrs.  Ward  and  Hughes. 

St.  Michael's  Chapel. — The  east  window,  by 
O’Connor  of  Birmingham,  was  erected  in  1862  to  the 
memory  of  the  officers  and  men  of  the  East  Kent 
Regiment  who  fell  in  the  Crimea.  The  south-west 
window,  with  figures  of  St.  Gregory,  St.  Augustine, 
King  Ethelbert  and  Queen  Bertha,  and  scenes  con- 
nected with  their  history,  is  a memorial  to  Colonel 
Geo.  Brockman  (died  1865),  by  Messrs.  Clayton  and 
Bell.  The  south-east  window,  inserted  in  1909  to  the 
memory  of  Lord  Congleton,  is  also  by  Clayton  and 
Bell. 

Choir. — South  aisle  : three  windows  by  Wailes,  of 
436 


STAINED  GLASS 

Newcastle  ; (beyond  the  crossing)  a window  to  the 
memory  of  Canon  Lockwood  (died  1851),  by  Austin; 
and  two  triforium  windows  to  the  memory  of  Dean 
and  Mrs.  Lyall,  by  Austin. 

South-east  Transept. — West  wall : a memorial  window 
to  the  Marquis  Conyngham,  erected  by  the  officers  and 
men  of  the  East  Kent  Mounted  Rifles  in  1883.  South 
wall  (to  the  right)  : a window  to  the  memory  of 
Edward  Leigh  Pemberton  (d.  1877),  and  (to  the  left) 
one  to  Dean  Alford  (d.  1871).  Triforium  : two  windows 
to  Dean  Alford  ; all  by  Messrs.  Clayton  and  Bell. 
The  circular  window  in  the  gable  contains  some  glass 
from  the  west  window  of  the  chapter-house  and  more 
by  Austin  representing  apostles,  evangelists  and  virtues. 
Mr.  Westlake  says  that  this  is  probably  a correct  repro- 
duction of  the  old  glass.  East  wall  : two  windows 
by  Austin,  viz.  one  in  St.  Gregory’s  apse  and  one  in 
St.  John  the  Evangelist’s  apse,  the  latter  a “ Jesse  ” 
window;  both  dated  1852.  Triforium : a window 
containing  an  excellent  imitation  of  thirteenth- 
century  glass,  by  Caldwell ; and  a window  in  memory 
of  Mrs.  Alford,  erected  by  her  daughter,  Mrs.  Bullock, 
in  1883  (with  the  one  opposite  in  the  west  triforium). 
Artist  (?) 

St.  Anselm's  Chapel . — In  the  south  window  of  five 
lights  are  figures  of  Archbishop  Stephen  Langton, 
Edward  the  Black  Prince,  St.  Anselm,  Joan  Plantagenet 
"and  Archbishop  Theodore.  In  the  west  window, 
Archbishops  Mepham  and  Bradwardine.  These  win- 
dows, with  those  in  the  eastern  apse,  were  filled  with 
stained  glass  by  Canon  Francis  Holland  c.  1886.  All 
are  by  Messrs.  Clayton  and  Bell. 

The  Corona . — The  window  to  the  right  of  the 
central  one  was  filled  by  Messrs.  Hemming  in  1897 
with  glass  which  is  a very  fair  imitation  of  thirteenth- 
century  glass.  The  Jesse  window  to  the  left  was  put 
in  by  Austin  in  1861. 

Trinity  Chapel. — In  the  north  aisle,  over  entrance 

437 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

to  Henry  IV’s  chantry,  a window  to  the  memory  of 
Lieut.  R.  G.  Dyson,  3rd  Dragoon  Guards  (d.  1888), 
by  Clayton  and  Bell. 

St.  Andrew's  Chanel. — The  central  window  of  the 
apse  is  a memorial  to  Dean  Stanley,  and  that  to  the 
left  of  it  to  John  Ellison,  honorary  canon  of  Canter- 
bury and  founder  of  the  Church  of  England  Tem- 
perance Society.  They  were  given  by  Dean  Farrar, 
and  designed  by  Mr.  C.  Whall. 

North-east  Transept . — East  wall : the  window  in 
St.  Stephen’s  apse  was  presented  by  Dr.  A.  P.  Stanley 
in  1858  as  a memorial  of  his  visit  to  the  Holy  Land. 
Part  of  the  border  appears  to  be  old  glass.  In  St. 
Martin’s  apse  with  the  exception  of  the  panel  repre- 
senting the  saint,  most  of  the  glass  is  the  work  of  Austin, 
and  a memorial  to  Canon  Spry  (d.  1855).  Trijorium  : a 
window  by  Caldwell  similar  to  that  in  the  south-east 
transept.  North  wall  : the  window  to  the  east  is 
by  Austin  (i860)  ; that  to  the  west,  to  the  memory 
of  Canon  Chesshyre  (d.  1859),  is  by  Hardman. 
Trijorium : two  windows  of  good  colour  by 

Powell,  of  Whitefriars,  London,  in  memory  of  Canon 
J.  C.  Robertson  (d.  1882).  West  wall  : a window 
to  the  memory  of  Lord  Kingsdown  (d.  1867),  ^7 
Clayton  and  Bell. 

Chapter  House. — Both  the  large  windows  are  the 
work  of  Hemming,  of  Margaret  Street,  London. 
The  east  window  was  the  gift  of  the  Freemasons  of 
Kent.  The  west  window  is  a memorial  to  Dean 
Farrar  (d.  1903). 

WALL  PAINTINGS 

Little  now  survives  of  the  elaborate  mural  decora- 
tion which  adorned  the  mediaeval  church.  In  the 
sixteenth  century  there  was  a good  deal  of  “ whiting 
over  ” and  “ putting  out  of  feigned  histories  ” by  the 
Reformers,  more  defacement  by  the  Puritans  in  the 

438 


WALL  PAINTINGS 

seventeenth  century,  and  finally  much  meddlesome 
scraping  and  rubbing  down  of  walls  by  the  “ restorers  ” 
in  the  nineteenth,  which  wiped  out  the  few  paintings 
which  had  survived  the  earlier  onslaughts.  Thus  the 
angels  holding  a cardinal’s  hat,  and  the  figure  of  St. 
Christopher  above  Pole’s  tomb,  with  the  phoenix  rising 
from  the  flames,  which  in  Gostling’s  time  ( c . 1770) 
could  still  be  made  out  on  the  walls  of  the  corona, 
have  all  disappeared.  There  was,  too,  somewhere  in 
the  choir  or  in  the  choir  aisles  a large  picture  of  the 
Apocalypse,  possibly  at  the  west  end  of  the  north 
aisle,  where  Johnson’s  view,  painted  in  1657,  shows 
a mural  painting  of  considerable  size.  In  the  recess  of 
the  blocked  window  nearest  to  the  transept  in  the 
same  aisle  a faded  representation  of  the  legend  of 
St.  Eustace  may  still  be  traced.  The  subject  is  an 
exceedingly  rare  one  in  English  churches,  but  at  Christ 
Church  St.  Eustace  had  a special  commemoration  on 
November  1.  That  this  picture  is  meant  to  illustrate 
the  life  and  martyrdom  of  St.  Eustace  is  clear  from 
the  crucifix  between  the  antlers  of  a large  white 
stag,  which  is  in  accordance  with  the  legend  of  his 
conversion  ; and  the  brazen  bull,  with  a fire  burning 
beneath,  into  which  an  executioner  is  forcing  the 
martyr. 

But  the  best  specimens  of  the  early  mural  decora- 
tions owe  their  preservation  to  the  fact  that  they  were 
hidden  from  sight  for  many  centuries  and  have  only 
been  brought  to  light  within  recent  memory.  The 
finest  example  now  extant  is  the  painting  representing 
St.  Paul  at  Melita  in  St.  Anselm’s  Chapel.  This  was 
discovered  in  1888,  when  the  late  Canon  Francis  J. 
Holland  was  generously  undertaking  the  restoration 
of  the  chapel  in  order  to  fit  it  for  early  celebrations  of 
the  Holy  Eucharist  on  week-days.  It  was  then  found 
that  at  a very  early  period  there  had  been  a settlement 
of  the  north  wall  of  the  chapel.  To  remedy  this  a 
later  Norman  arch  had  been  inserted  between  the 

439 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

chapel  and  the  apse,  and  at  the  same  time  the  northern 
part  of  the  apse  had  been  refaced  with  ashlar.  After 
an  outer  buttress  had  been  built  and  the  arches 
had  been  reset,  Canon  Holland  caused  the  internal 
buttressing  to  be  removed,  and  behind  it  was  dis- 
covered the  painting  representing  St.  Paul  shaking  off 
the  viper  into  the  fire.  This  painting,  which  must 
have  been  hidden  from  sight  for  more  than  seven 
centuries,  has  been  described  by  the  late  Mr.  J.  G. 
Waller,  F.S.A.,  as  follows  : 

The  tempora  painting  of  St.  Paul  at  Melita  has  a special  interest 
inasmuch  as  that  as  far  as  I know  the  subject  is  unique  in  the  mediaeval 
art  of  this  country.  Still  more  interest  perhaps  attaches  to  it  from  its 
merit  as  a work  of  art  which  must  probably  be  attributed  to  the  middle 
of  the  twelfth  century.  . . . The  drawing  of  the  extremities,  especially 
of  the  foot,  is  a long  way  in  advance  of  any  example  known  to  me  in 
England  ; and  this  is  always  a test  of  an  artist’s  power.  The  drapery 
is  well  cast  and  gracefully  treated.  The  colouring  is  generally  good 
and  delicate  throughout.  The  blue  background,  which  was  much 
affected  during  the  twelfth  century  and  in  the  early  part  of  the  thirteenth, 
is  here  rather  too  powerful,  arising  perhaps  from  the  fact  of  its  being  a 
pure  colour  and  unbroken.  Time,  however,  may  have  modified  the 
shades  that  go  with  it,  and  thus  make  it  too  prominent.1 

Inferior  to  the  above  in  execution  but  of  extra- 
ordinary interest  are  the  extensive  series  of  twelfth- 
century  paintings  on  the  walls  and  roof  of  St.  GabriePs 
Chapel,  beneath  the  chapel  of  St.  Anselm,  of  which 
we  will  give  a brief  description. 

Entering  the  nave  of  St.  GabriePs  chapel,  we  notice 
that  the  four  bays  of  the  groined  roof  supported  by 
the  central  pillar  have  been  entirely  covered  with 
painted  designs  of  which  scarcely  any  remain  complete. 
The  designs  seem  to  have  consisted  of  subjects  from 
Holy  Scripture,  arranged  in  medallions,  of  which  several 
of  small  size,  each  containing  the  half-length  figure  of 
a saint  or  angel,  are  grouped  around  one  of  larger 
diameter.  The  borders  of  conventional  patterns 

1 Arch.  Cant.  vol.  xviii.  pp.  172-3. 

440 


WALL  PAINTINGS 

remain  upon  some  of  the  square-edged  members  of 
the  groining  arches.  The  medallions  bear  a very 
close  resemblance  to  those  on  the  walls  of  the 
Norman  church  at  Brooke,  near  Wye.  It  is  evident 
that  this  decoration  was  added  after  Ernulf’s  crypt  was 


Nave  of  St.  Gabriel's  Cha-pel 


finished  (before  1107)  and  that  it  was  an  afterthought, 
since  the  ornaments  wrought  with  a hatchet  which 
characterises  Ernulf’s  work  may  be  seen  on  the 
squared  edges  of  the  arch  where  the  plaster  has 
scaled  off. 

Probably  these  mural  paintings  formed  part  of  a 
scheme  for  the  decoration  of  the  crypt  executed  in 
the  days  of  Prior  Wibert  (1150-1157),  which  also 

441 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

included  the  grotesque  carvings  on  the  capitals  of  the 
columns. 

The  east  end  of  this  little  nave  was,  during  the 
middle  ages,  a straight  wall,  in  which  towards  the 
south  there  was  a piscina-like  niche,  and  towards  the 
north  a bracket  for  an  image  or  lamps.  The  central 
portion  of  the  wall  was  very  slightly  recessed,  as  if 
for  the  reredos  of  an  altar.  Low  down  in  the  wall 
was  a rectangular  aperture,  through  which  persons 
could  with  difficulty  creep  into  the  small  apse  on  the 
other  side. 

In  1879  a door  was  broken  through  the  wall,  and  it 
was  then  found  that  its  outer  western  face  had  been 
added  after  the  apse  had  been  walled  up  ; for  there 
was  evidence  to  show  that  the  original  blocking-wall 
had  been  plastered  and  painted  before  it  was  covered 
with  an  outer  facing  of  ashlar.  When,  then,  was  the 
apse  of  the  chapel  first  blocked  up  ? From  the  fact 
that  in  Gervase’s  minute  description  of  the  church,  . 
which  was  written  in  or  about  1199,  no  mention  is 
made  of  any  altar  under  St.  Anselm’s  chapel,  we  may 
conclude  that  the  monks  had  already  shut  up  the  apse 
and  desired  to  keep  its  existence  secret. 

The  cause  for  this  secret  and  mysterious  closing  of 
St.  Gabriel’s  apse  can  only  be  conjectured.  Canon 
Scott  Robertson  says  : “ It  seems  to  me  that  in  the 
troubles  and  alarms  of  the  monks  during  the  period 
between  1170  and  1199  we  may  find  the  cause  (for 
the  walling  up  of  the  apse).  The  fierce  threats  of 
Becket’s  enemies  induced  the  monks  to  carry  his  body 
in  haste  from  the  high  altar  down  to  the  remotest 
chapel  of  the  crypt  for  safety  within  twelve  hours  of 
his  murder.  . . . During  the  fire  in  1174,  and  again 
when  the  new  eastern  crypt  was  building  around 
Becket’s  tomb,  there  would  be  great  anxiety  respecting 
the  safety  of  his  wonder-working  body.  A few  years 
later  occurred  the  dispute  with  Archbishop  Baldwin, 
who  actually  sent  armed  men  to  besiege  the  convent. 

+42 


WALL  PAINTINGS 

I believe  that  during  one  of  these  troublous  periods, 
which  filled  the  monks  with  the  utmost  terror  and 
alarm,  the  apse  of  St.  Gabriel’s  chapel  was  converted 
into  the  most  secret  hiding-place  in  the  church.”  1 
However  this  may  have  been,  the  apse  was  shut  off 
from  the  rest  of  the  chapel  at  an  early  date,  and  doubt- 
less it  is  to  this  circumstance  that  the  preservation  of 
the  paintings  which  adorn  its  walls  and  roof  is  due. 

The  subjects  [says  Canon  Scott  Robertson]  are  extremely  appropriate 
to  their  position.  In  the  centre  of  the  roof  is  the  Divine  figure,  seated 
in  majesty,  surrounded  by  a wide  vesica  to  which  the  four  adoring  angels 
are  extended.  By  the  position  of  the  fingers,  the  Divine  figure  seems 
to  direct  attention  with  both  hands  to  the  scenes,  four  upon  the  north 
wall  and  four  upon  the  south,  which  represent  the  history  of  the  glorious 
missions  entrusted  to  the  Archangel  Gabriel.  On  the  north  side,  Gabriel 
announces  to  Zacharias  the  coming  birth  of  John  the  Baptist.  On  the 
south,  Gabriel  announces  to  Mary  the  Incarnation  of  Jesus  our  Lord. 
The  results  of  the  first  annunciation  are  sketched  on  the  north  side  in 
three  further  scenes : (ii)  Zacharias,  dumb,  appearing  to  the  people  outside 
the  Temple ; (iii)  friends  come  to  Elizabeth’s  couch  to  name  her  son ; 
(iv)  they  appeal  to  Zacharias  against  her  naming  him  John.  The 
history  of  the  second  annunciation  is  further  depicted  in  these  three 
scenes  on  the  south  : (i)  Elizabeth  saluting  Mary ; (ii)  Mary  on  her 
couch  with  the  infant  Saviour  ; (iii)  the  fourth  scene  is  very  indistinct. 
Right  and  left  of  the  entrance  to  the  apse  are  the  admirably  painted 
figures  of  two  seraphim,  each  having  six  wings,  full  of  eyes  within  and 
without.  One  stands  on  each  side  with  his  feet  on  a winged  wheel, 
the  face  north  and  south,  as  if  guarding  the  entrance.  To  complete 
the  allusion  to  the  heavenly  host,  we  find  above  the  site  of  the  altar, 
around  the  soffit  of  the  arch  of  the  eastern  recess  of  the  apse,  figures  of 
jthe  angels  of  the  seven  Churches  of  Asia,  each  holding  a candlestick.  At 
the  apex  of  the  arch  is  a circle  containing  representations  of  “ the  seven 
stars,  which  are  the  angels  of  the  seven  churches  ” (Rev.  i.  20).  Seven 
being  an  uneven  number,  there  are  four  angels  with  candlesticks  on  the 
south  side,  but  only  three  on  the  north.  To  fill  the  fourth  compart- 
ment on  the  north  side  the  artist  has  depicted  St.  John  the  Evangelist 
in  the  act  of  writing  the  Apocalypse.2 

Mr.  Westlake  has  pointed  out  that  a sure  mark  of 
the  date  of  these  remarkable  frescoes  is  to  be  found  in 
the  way  the  eyes  of  the  various  figures  are  drawn.  “ It 


1 Archceoloeia  Cantiana , vol.  xiii.  p.  C2. 

2 Ibid.  pp.  55,  56. 


443 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

was  not  common,”  he  says,  “ to  insert  a second  line 
or  iris  to  the  eye  in  the  earlier  years  of  the  twelfth 
century,  and  it  ceased  to  be  used  late  in  the  twelfth 
or  early  in  the  thirteenth  century.” 1 From  the  fact 
that  the  artists  who  painted  these  figures  made  use  of 
the  second  line,  we  may  infer  that  the  work  was 
executed  in  the  second  half  of  the  twelfth  century, 
probably  in  its  las^:  quarter.  Mr.  W.  de  Gray  Birch, 
of  the  British  Museum,  concurs  on  the  question  of 
date,  and  is  also  of  opinion  that  the  frescoes  are  of 
English  origin.  In  1878  the  dean  and  chapter  engaged 
the  services  of  Mr.  James  Neale,  F.S.A.,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  fixing  the  plaster  on  which  the  above  subjects 
are  painted,  and  when  this  had  been  done  the  same 
gentleman  made  full-sized  facsimile  drawings  of  the 
whole  series  at  the  cost  of  the  Kent  Archaeological 
Society.  Mr.  Neale’s  drawings  now  hang  upon^the 
walls  of  the  chapter  library. 

C.  E.  W. 


1 History  of  Design , op.  cit.  i.  40. 


444 


CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  CHOIR  AND  THE  ORGAN 

The  choral  service  is  so  important  and  distinctive  a 
feature  in  the  English  cathedral  system  that  our 
history  of  the  cathedral  and  metropolitical  church  of 
Christ  in  Canterbury  would  be  incomplete  without 
some  account  of  the  choir  and  organ. 

The  statutes  of  Henry  VIII  made  liberal  provision 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  choral  service.  There 
were  to  be  twelve  minor  canons,  twelve  lay  clerks,  and 
ten  chorister  boys,  “ to  the  end  that  earnest  prayer 
and  continual  supplication  may  be  offered  up  in  our 
church  decently  and  in  order,  and  that  the  praises  of 
God  may  every  day  be  celebrated  with  singing  and 
thanksgiving.”  A paid  choir  of  singers  was  not,  how- 
ever, altogether  a new  thing,  for  although  in  monastic 
times  the  choir  offices  had  been  chanted  by  the 
brethren  without  outside  help,  the  boys  of  the 
almonry  school  sang  at  high  mass,  and  on  Sundays  and 
feast  days  further  assistance  was  given  by  paid  singers 
-who  were  not  members  of  the  community.1 

1 A list  of  the  days  upon  which  the  Sacrist  paid  for  extra  music  {$ro 
sonitu)  is  preserved  amongst  the  Chapter  Archives.  It  was  drawn  up 
in  1273,  and  from  the  various  sums  set  against  the  feast-days  we 
can  form  some  idea  of  their  relative  importance  in  the  eyes  of  the 
monks  of  Christ  Church.  In  all  there  were  seventy-two  days  on 
which  the  Sacrist  paid  for  extra  music,  and  the  amount  varied  from 
three  shillings  and  sixpence  on  Easterday,  Whit  Sunday,  Trinity 
Sunday,  Christmas  Day,  the  Martyrdom  and  Translation  of  St. 
Thomas  of  Canterbury,  St.  Dunstan’s  Day,  and  the  Assumption  of 
the  blessed  Virgin,  to  threepence,  which  was  the  sum  paid  on  the 
Feasts  of  the  Apostles. 


445 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Nor  was  there  any  break  with  the  past  at  the  time 
of  the  new  foundation,  as  far  as  the  services  of  the 
church  were  concerned.  The  Latin  service  book 
retained  its  place,  and  the  choir  offices,  in  which 
the  chanting  of  the  psalms  was  no  inconsiderable 
part,  continued  to  be  sung  by  men’s  voices,  the 
boys  being  only  requisitioned  for  the  music  of  the 
mass.1  The  circumstance  that  nearly  all  the  minor 
canons  and  several  of  the  lay  clerks  had  been  either 
monks  or  novices  of  the  priory  was  a further  guarantee 
that  for  a time  at  any  rate  the  old  Canterbury  use 
would  be  maintained. 

In  1547,  however,  some  important  innovations  were 
introduced.  By  Royal  Injunctions  issued  in  the  above 
year  the  Lady  Mass  was  to  be  omitted  on  all  holy  days 
on  which  a sermon  was  preached  or  a homily  was  read. 
Sequences  (that  is,  hymns  between  the  Epistle  and 
Gospel)  were  no  longer  to  be  sung,  “ neither  working 
day  nor  holy  day.”  The  psalms,  which  apparently 
had  hitherto  been  hurried  through  in  a perfunctory 
manner,  were  to  be  sung  “ with  such  a leisure  and 
deliberation  as  the  pronouncing  of  them  may  be 
perceived  both  by  the  singer  and  hearer.”  “ Masses 
of  note  ” were  no  longer  to  be  sung  at  side-altars  or 
in  chantry  chapels,  but  “ within  the  choir.”  Two 
chapters  of  the  Bible  were  to  be  read  daily,  viz.  one  in 
the  morning  after  matins  and  the  other  in  the  evening 
after  the  Magnificat,  by  the  “ peticanons  ” in  their 
turn.  And  lastly  the  tonsure  was  dispensed  with  as 
far  as  the  choristers  were  concerned.2 

These  changes  were,  of  course,  only  the  precursors 
of  much  greater  ones,  for  two  years  later  (1549)  t^ie 

1 Statute  No.  32  ordains  that  the  daily  service  should  be  sung  by  the 
minor  canons,  the  lay  clerks  and  the  master  of  the  choristers ; the  boys 
are  not  mentioned  in  this  connection. 

2 “ That  the  choristers  have  from  henceforth  the  crown  shaven  no 
more,  their  heads  nevertheless  to  be  kept  short.” — Visitation  Articles , 
&c.,  ed.  by  W.  H.  Frere  for  the  Alcuin  Club,  vol.  ii.  p.  140. 

446 


THE  CHOIR  AND  ORGAN 

Latin  liturgy  gave  way  to  the  English  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.  Nevertheless,  the  ancient  plain-song  did  not 
at  once  become  obsolete,  but  was  adapted  to  the 
words  of  the  new  book  by  Merbeck  and  Tallis.  Early 
in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  however,  plain-song 
began  to  be  superseded  by  more  elaborate  compositions 
which  depended  for  their  effect  upon  nicely  balanced 
harmonies.  It  was  then  found  that  the  proportion 
of  men’s  voices  was  too  great,  and  in  order  to  give 
greater  relative  strength  to  the  treble  part  six  of  the 
minor  canonries  were  suppressed.  Although  six  sub- 
stitutes were  appointed  in  their  place,  it  is  probable 
that  the  latter  only  acted  as  deputies  for  absent  minor 
canons  ; so  that  the  number  of  men-singers  was  now 
reduced  from  twenty-four  to  eighteen.  Even  then  the 
boys’  voices  were  found  to  be  overweighted,  and 
in  order  to  give  further  support  to  the  treble  part 
two  sackbutters  and  two  cornetters  were  appointed, 
whose  duty  was  “ to  support  the  melody  on  feast 
days  and  their  vigils.”  1 The  sackbut  was  an  instru- 
ment resembling  the  modern  trombone,  and  the 
cornett,  which  must  not  be  confounded  with  the 
modern  cornet,  was  a small  open  metal  pipe  capable 
of  great  brilliancy  of  tone,  and  thus  well  adapted  for 
sustaining  the  voices  of  the  choir-boys. 

The  sackbutters  and  cornetters,  who  first  make  their 
appearance  in  1598,  wore  surplices  and  received  a 
stipend  of  £5  a year  each,  their  salaries  being  defrayed 
out  of  the  statutable  allowance  made  for  the  epistoler 
and  gospeller,  offices  which  before  the  close  of  the 
sixteenth  century  had  become  obsolete.  They  were 
placed  upon  the  foundation  by  Archbishop  Laud  in 
1636,  and  reappear  in  the  treasurers’  books  for  a few 
years  after  the  Restoration,  but  then  drop  out  of  sight. 
An  inventory  of  church  goods  made  in  1752  records 
amongst  the  contents  of  a chest  “ two  brass  sackbuts 
1 “ Tibicenis  propter  melodiam  in  4 choro  faciend  * diebus  festis  et 
eorum  vigiliis.” — Treasurers'  Accounts. 


447 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

not  used  for  a great  number  of  years,  part  of  the  body 
of  an  old  bass  viol,  and  such-like  trumpery.” 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  statutes  make  no  provision 
for  an  organist.  Dr.  Hook  states  that  organs  were 
introduced  into  England  by  Archbishop  Theodore  in 
the  seventh  century  ; however  that  may  have  been, 
it  is  probably  safe  to  assume  that  Canterbury  Cathedral 
was  one  of  the  first  churches  to  possess  such  an 
instrument.  In  monastic  times  the  organist  was 
always  one  of  the  brethren,  and  a few  references  to 
the  organ  occur  in  the  sacrist’s  accounts.  Thus,  we 
learn  that  a new  organ  was  purchased  in  1334  ttn 
expensis  circa  nova  organa  per  diversas  vices , lxis)  ; and 
again,  rather  more  than  one  hundred  years  later,  that 
Nicholas  Rawnce  in  1447  was  paid  66s.  5^d-  for  making 
“ one  pair  of  organs.”  The  inventory  made  at  the 
time  of  the  suppression  of  the  priory  mentions  “ two 
pair  of  organs  in  the  choir.”  Unfortunately  we  do 
not  get  any  exact  information  as  to  where  these  pre- 
Reformation  instruments  were  placed.  It  seems,  how- 
ever, likely  that  the  loft  over  the  western  choir  screen 
contained  an  organ,  and  that  it  was  on  the  exception- 
ally wide  platform  of  this  loft  that  the  hired  singers 
stood  when  the  voices  of  the  monks  required  re- 
inforcement. At  all  events  when  we  first  get  definite 
information  about  the  position  of  the  organ  it  was  in 
the  rood-loft.  Thus  in  1564,  when  the  dean  and 
chapter  decided  to  buy  a new  organ,  they  ordered 
that  the  old  organ  standing  in  the  rood-loft  be  taken 
down  and  its  materials  used  for  the  new  instrument.1 

The  new  organ  was  not  placed  in  the  rood-loft  but 
over  the  north  choir  stalls,  in  imitation  of  the  example 
that  had  been  lately  set  at  St.  Paul’s  Cathedral 
in  London.2  And  here  the  instrument  remained 

1 This  seems  to  be  the  tenor  of  the  order,  but  the  Act  Book  is  so 
badly  burnt  that  the  entry  cannot  be  read  in  its  entirety. 

2 “ To  the  sexton  of  Powles  to  let  me  see  the  place  where  the  new 
organs  stood  XIId.” — Treasurers’  Accounts  sub  anno. 

448 


THE  CHOIR  AND  ORGAN 

throughout  all  successive  rebuildings  down  to  the 
year  1784.  A good  deal  of  money  was  spent  upon  the 
organ  in  1578,  in  which  year  Jasper  Blankard  was 
paid  £ 20  “ over  and  besides  his  bargain  and  agreement 
for  the  amending  of  the  great  organs.”  It  would  seem 
that  twenty  years  later  a new  organ  was  acquired,  for  in 
1598  four  of  the  cathedral  workmen  assisted  “ to  help 
up  the  organes  ” ; but  we  hear  nothing  more  about 
it  except  that  certain  carved  figures  were  bought  in 
1619  for  the  case  ( pro  imaginibus  in  organo  positis , 
34s-  4d-)- 

Although  the  statutes  made  no  provision  for  an 
organist,  William  Selby  (who  was  already  master  of 
the  choristers)  was  appointed  organist  in  1547,  and 
the  two  offices  have  been  held  together  ever  since. 
During  the  Marian  reaction  Selby  lost  his  place, 
presumably  on  account  of  his  religious  sympathies,  but 
he  was  reinstated  on  the  accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
and  continued  to  hold  office  for  another  five-and- 
twenty  years.  As  he  was  not  a statutable  officer  he  was 
dependent  for  remuneration  on  the  goodwill  of  the 
dean  and  chapter,  who  made  him  certain  grants  every 
year  which  appear  in  the  Treasurer’s  Accounts  as 

BFeoda  et  regarda . Of  course,  this  was  in  addition  to  his 
stipend  of  £$  7s.  per  annum  as  master  of  the  choristers. 

To  the  other  members  of  the  choir  the  actual  money 
payment  allowed  by  statute  was  as  follows  : to  a minor 
canon,  £5  2s.  ; to  a lay  clerk,  .£4  5s.  iod.  ; to  a 
chorister,  £1  5s.  But  there  were  also  allowances  for 
gowns  which  brought  up  the  stipends  to  .£10,  £8  and 
£3  3s.  4d.  respectively ; and  in  addition  to  the 
privilege  of  dining  together  in  the  peticanons’  hall, 
all  the  minor  canons  had  houses  in  the  precincts 
and  several  of  the  lay  clerks  had  free  lodgings  in  the 
tenement  houses  formed  out  of  the  great  monastic 
dormitory.  This  was  a fairly  liberal  provision  at  the 
time,  but  the  mistake  made  by  the  framers  of  the 
statutes  was  that  they  allotted  to  the  choir — and 

2 f 449 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

indeed  to  all  non-capitulars — a fixed  money  pay- 
ment instead  of  a fixed  proportion  of  the  whole 
divisible  income  ; so  that  in  process  of  time,  as  the 
purchasing  power  of  money  declined,  the  inferior 
members  of  the  church  became  poorer.  In  the  case 
of  the  minor  canons  this  was  remedied  by  allowing 
them  to  hold  benefices  with  their  minor  canonries ; 
and  so  well  did  they  avail  themselves  of  this  privilege 
that  in  the  later  years  of  the  seventeenth  century  no 
less  than  seventeen  livings  were  held  by  six  minor 
canons.  But  to  the  lay  clerks  no  such  opportunity 
of  increasing  their  income  was  open,  with  the  result 
that  although  from  time  to  time  their  stipends 
received  small  augmentations,  they  remained  miserably 
underpaid.  It  is  therefore  perhaps  scarcely  to  be 
wondered  at  that  sometimes  they  resorted  to  illicit 
ways  for  eking  out  their  slender  livelihood.  Thus, 
Thomas  Baylie  seems  to  have  turned  his  residence  in 
the  precincts  into  a sort  of  public-house,  where,  in 
spite  of  “ divers  warnings  given  by  the  dean  and 
chapter,  he  continued  to  sell  beer,  wine  and  other 
victuals,”  until  he  was  expelled  by  Act  of  chapter  in 
1603.  Another  lay  clerk  who  had  been  dismissed  for 
non-attendance  petitioned  to  be  restored  to  his  place 
in  the  choir  on  the  ground  that  his  absence  from  the 
services  of  the  church  had  not  been  wilful,  “ but  to 
prevent  him  from  an  arrest.”  He  adds  that  he  “ hath 
prevailed  with  his  creditors  to  permit  him  to  come  to 
church,”  and  begs  to  be  reinstated  in  his  office  that  he 
may  be  “ in  better  capacity  both  of  serving  God  and 
of  satisfying  his  creditors.”  There  were  even  worse 
cases  than  this ; for  instance,  that  of  a clerk  whose 
prolonged  absence  from  duty  had  been  the  subject  of 
much  unfavourable  comment,  and  who  was  at  length 
discovered  in  the  common  debtors’  prison  in  the 
Westgate. 

Laud’s  fondness  for  cathedral  music  was  well  known, 
and  the  choirmen  hoped  that  when  he  was  engaged  in 
450 


<IHE  CHOIR  AND  ORGAN 

revising  the  statutes  he  might  do  something  for 
them.  In  the  preamble  to  their  petition  they 
stated  that  they  were  encouraged  to  approach 
his  Grace  from  the  knowledge  that  he  had  “ a good 
liking  towards  the  art  of  musick,  now  sore  decayed,” 
and  grounded  their  special  appeal  upon  the  fact  that 
since  the  city  of  Canterbury  “ stood  upon  the  leading 
highway  unto  the  chiefest  city  of  the  realm,”  the 
cathedral  church  was  “ much  frequented  by  ambas- 
sadors of  the  chiefest  princes  of  Christendom.” 

The  following  concessions,  they  thought,  would 
tend  towards  the  general  well-being  and  efficiency  of 
the  choir  : 

(1)  That  there  should  be  but  one  choral  service 
on  week  days,  and  that  in  the  forenoon,  “ as  was 
the  custom  at  the  Chapel  Royal,  St.  Paul’s  Cathe- 
dral, Westminster  Abbey,  Rochester  Cathedral  and 
all  other  cathedral  churches  ” (sic).  If  this  were 
granted,  then  the  minor  canons  would  have  more  time 
for  study,  the  lay  clerks  a better  opportunity  “ to 
exercise  themselves  in  their  several  functions  to  the 
augmenting  of  their  poor  livings  ” ; and  the  chorister- 
boys  would  be  “ better  able  to  apply  themselves  to 
their  books.” 

(2)  That  all  members  of  the  choir,  in  accordance 
with  the  statute,  should  have  some  voice  in  the 
choosing  of  candidates  for  membership,  in  the  same 
}yay  as  such  elections  were  made  at  the  Chapel  Royal 
and  at  St.  Paul’s  Cathedral. 

(3)  That  the  chorister-boys,  after  good  service  in 
the  choir,  “ should  have  the  benefit  of  the  grammar 
school  ” ; and 

(4)  That  the  minor  canons  and  lay  clerks  should  be 
exempted  by  statute  from  serving  on  juries. 

The  proposal  that  the  choral  service  should  be  per- 
formed only  once  a day  in  the  metropolitical  church 
was  not  likely  to  be  well  received  by  Laud.  When 
revising  the  statutes,  he  put  the  organist,  sackbutters 

4Si 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

and  cornetters  on  the  foundation,  but  that  was  all. 
Privately,  however,  he  brought  some  pressure  to  bear 
upon  the  Dean  and  Chapter  to  improve  the  stipends 
of  the  choirmen,  which  was  so  far  successful  that 
certain  fees  known  as  the  “ entertainment  money  ” 
were  now  ear-marked  for  the  choir.1 

It  is  somewhat  surprising  that  the  choirmen  con- 
sidered the  two  daily  services  a hardship,  for  not 
many  years  previously  they  had  been  compelled  to 
attend  three.  Thus  an  Act  of  Chapter  of  the  year 
1583  ordered  that  “ the  peticanons  and  lay  clerks 
must  be  present  at  the  three  daily  services,  except  in 
their  weeks  of  liberty  ; and  that  every  one  of  them 
for  making  default  shall  the  next  service  afterwards 
stand  in  his  surplice  during  the  time  of  the  whole 
service  at  the  door  of  the  grate  of  the  choir.” 

The  “ weeks  of  liberty  ” mentioned  in  the  above 
order  meant  one  week  in  three,  which  seems  a very 
liberal  amount  of  vacation  ; but  no  doubt  the  sub- 
stitutes acted  for  lay  clerks  as  well  as  for  minor  canons. 
In  1677  t^ie  “ liberty  weeks  ” were  taken  away,  the 
Act  book  stating  that  the  privilege  was  withdrawn 
on  account  of  the  choirmen  “ greatly  abusing  that 
favour  by  neglecting  of  doing  of  their  duty.” 

The  “ third  daily  service  ” probably  referred  to 
early  prayers  in  the  sermon  (chapter)  house.  Before 
the  time  of  the  Commonwealth  there  was  an  organ 
in  the  sermon  house,  at  which  Francis  Plomer,  one  of 
the  lay  clerks,  officiated.  The  instrument  was  sold  by 
the  sequestrators  about  1650,  as  we  learn  from  the 
following  acquittance  : “ Recd  of  Mr.  Robert  Doe,  of 
ye  Cathedral  in  Canterbury,  due  unto  ye  State,  for  a 
small  paire  of  Organs  which  formerly  stood  in  ye 
Sermon  House,  the  sum  of  seaven  pounds  six  shillings 
and  eightpence.  By  mee  Tho  : Monins.” 

At  the  outbreak  of  the  great  Rebellion  the  choir 

1 The  entertainment  money  was  paid  by  tenants  in  lieu  of  hospitality 
to  the  dean  and  chapter  when  they  visited  their  estates. 

452 


THE  CHOIR  AND  ORGAN 

organ  was  wrecked  by  Col.  Sandys’  troopers,  of  whose 
proceedings  we  have  already  given  some  account  in 
a previous  chapter.  When  Puritanism  was  in  the 
ascendant  the  choir  was  silenced  and  its  members 
turned  adrift.  The  hardships  which  the  lay  clerks 
suffered  is  well  illustrated  by  the  following  petition 
in  which  Thomas  Jones,  who  had  served  the  church 
for  upwards  of  forty-three  years,  made  known  his 
woes  to  the  Dean  and  Chapter  after  the  long  inter- 
regnum : 

The  humble  petition  of  Thomas  Jones,  one  of  the  lay-clerkes  of  the 
said  Cathedrall. 

In  most  humble  manner  sheweth  that  your  Worship’s  poore  petitioner 
in  the  time  of  the  rebellion  (the  Church  being  dissolved)  lost  his  main- 
tenance, having  then  a wife  and  seven  children,  and  no  other  livelyhood 
but  a Reader’s  place  of  four  pounds  a year  in  the  Hospitall  of  Kings- 
bridge  in  Canterbury,  and  certain  writing  schollers  wch  he  taught  in 
the  King-schoole  of  the  said  Church  wch  amounted  in  all  but  to  ten 
pounds,  wch  means  being  small  and  his  charge  so  great,  lived  in  a very 
meane  condition  so  that  he  was  obliged  to  goe  upon  score  both  for  the 
belly  and  the  back,  And  now  it  having  pleased  God  to  restore  him  to 
his  former  place  again  his  Creditors  come  very  fast  upon  him,  and  being 
not  able  for  the  present  to  give  full  satisfaction  is  constrained  to  become 
an  humble  suitor  unto  your  Worships,  humbly  intreating  that  your 
Worships  will  be  pleased  to  take  his  so  sad  condition  so  farre  into  your 
charitable  consideration  (he  having  been  a member  of  the  cathedral 
church  for  the  space  of  three  and  forty  yeares  and  upwards)  to  contribute 
him  this  Audit  your  charitable  benevolence,  &c.  . . . 

The  above  is  such  a pathetic  document  that  we  feel 
sure  that  the  dean  and  chapter  did  not  turn  a deaf 
ear  to  it.  A joint  petition  drawn  up  by  the  lay  clerks 
at  the  same  time,  in  which  they  claimed  their  wages 
for  the  sixteen  or  seventeen  years  during  which  they 
had  been  in  enforced  retirement,  was  less  well  received. 
Nevertheless,  something  was  done  to  improve  their 
position,  for  in  a letter  to  Archbishop  Juxon,  dated 
December  6,  1661,  the  Dean  and  Chapter  inform  his 
Grace  that  “ out  of  a desire  we  have  to  accommodate 
our  Quire-men  we  have  set  apart  for  the  improvement 
of  their  maintenance  the  yearly  rent  and  revenue  of  a 

453 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

manor  of  ours  now  by  the  expiration  of  the  lease 
falling  into  our  hands.” 

In  the  following  year  articles  of  agreement  were 
entered  into  between  the  cathedral  authorities  and 
Lancelot  Pease,  of  Cambridge,  organ-maker,  for  a 
new  choir  organ.  Pease  in  return  for  £ 600  agreed 
to  “ set  up  in  the  organ  loft  now  standing  in  or  by 
the  choir  a double  organ,  viz.  a great  organ  and  a 
chaire  (Quire)  organ,  the  great  organ  to  contain 
thirteen  stops,  and  the  quire  organ  six.”  From  the 
fact  that  in  addition  to  the  money  payment  Pease  was 
to  be  allowed  “ the  present  organ  standing  in  the 
organ  loft  ” it  would  appear  that  the  old  organ  had 
not  been  entirely  demolished  by  the  Puritans. 

As  Pease’s  organ  was  not  a large  instrument  (a 
specification  of  the  various  stops  will  be  found  in  an 
appendix  to  the  present  chapter),  the  price  seems 
excessive,  especially  as  in  about  twenty-five  years  the 
organ  was  worn  out.  Perhaps  its  end  was  hastened 
by  rats,  for  between  1670  and  1680  a good  many 
rewards  were  given  to  the  blower  “ for  killing  a rat 
in  the  organ  loft.” 

At  any  rate,  the  dean  and  chapter  decided  to  have  a 
new  organ  in  1683,  and  determined  that  this  time  they 
would  employ  a builder  of  repute.  Accordingly  they 
called  in  the  famous  Bernard  Smith,  the  King’s  organ- 
maker,  whose  contest  with  Renatus  Harris  for  the 
contract  for  the  organ  of  the  Temple  Church  in  London 
is  a matter  of  history.1  “ Father  Smith,”  as  he  is  called 
by  the  organ-building  fraternity,  prepared  two 
specifications  for  the  Canterbury  organ  ; in  the  earlier 
one  he  contracted  to  preserve  the  front  pipes  of  the 
old  organ  and  set  them  up  again  “ for  a shew  front 
to  the  new  organ  fronting  the  body  of  the  church.” 
From  which  it  appears  that  it  was  at  first  intended  to 
place  the  new  organ  in  the  loft  over  the  western  choir 

1 See  the  “History  of  the  Organ,”  by  Hopkins  and  Rimbault,  London, 
1877,  p.  103,  &c. 

454 


THE  CHOIR  AND  ORGAN 

screen.  This,  however,  was  afterwards  altered,  and 
Smith  agreed  to  build  his  organ  “ in  the  place  where 
the  old  organ  stood  ” — that  is,  under  the  third  arch 
of  the  northern  arcade  of  the  choir.1 

The  new  instrument  was  not  quite  so  large  as  its 
predecessor,  having  ten  stops  on  the  great  and  four 
on  the  choir  organ.  The  trumpet  stop  in  the  former 
was  a novelty,  and  the  builder  offered  to  teach  Robert 
Wren,  the  cathedral  organist,  how  to  tune  it.  The 
price  agreed  upon,  including  a case  “ of  the  best 
seasoned  wainscot  to  be  fashioned,  carved  and  finished 
in  accordance  with  a model  and  draught  delivered,” 
was  no  more  than  .£470  ; but  Smith,  in  giving  his 
acquittance  for  the  above  sum,  complained  that  the 
work  “ would  not  bear  the  charges,”  and  asked  for 
.£100  more.  Whether  he  got  it  or  not  we  do  not 
know. 

In  1713  the  dean  and  chapter  received  from  Dr. 
John  Robinson,  bishop  of  Bristol,  and  elect  of  London, 
a gift  of  .£100  “ as  a memorial  of  his  having  been  once 
a canon  of  Canterbury,”  and  the  money  was  voted  to 
the  improvement  of  the  organ,  which  was  repaired, 
and  a cremona  stop  added  by  John  Knopple. 

In  1752  the  organ  was  rebuilt  and  enlarged  by 
Richard  Bridge,  of  Wood  Close,  Clerkenwell,  London. 
For  the  first  time  a third  manual  was  introduced, 
controlling  an  echo  or  swell  organ  of  six  stops.  The 
cost  was  .£480,  of  which  sum  Captain  Humphery 
Pudner  gave  half,  and  would  have  given  more  “ if 
the  instrument  might  have  been  placed  over  the 
choir  door  ” ; but  this  was  not  approved,  and  the 
organ  was  set  up  again  in  the  north  choir  aisle  and 
retained  its  old  case. 

1 G.  S.  in  the  “ Chronological  History  of  the  Cathedral,”  p.  337,  states 
that  the  organ  was  placed  under  the  second  arch ; but  in  a picture  by 
Pieter  Nieffs  painted  before  1704,  and  also  in  Dart’s  view  of  the  choir 
published  in  1726,  the  organ  is  under  the  third  arch  counting  from  the 
west. 


455 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

In  1784  the  organ  was  again  rebuilt,  and  was  now 
removed  to  the  loft  over  the  choir  screen.  The  work 
was  entrusted  to  Samuel  Greene,  the  most  celebrated 
organ-builder  in  England  at  that  time,  who  took  out 
the  old  diapasons  and  replaced  them  by  others  of  his 
own  make  which  had  lately  done  duty  in  the  organ 
erected  by  him  for  the  Handel  Commemoration  in 
Westminster  Abbey.  Greene’s  organ  over  the  choir 
screen  is  shown  in  Wild’s  view  of  the  nave  published 
in  1816.  But  it  did  not  retain  this  position  very  long, 
for  in  1827  it  was  removed  by  Longhurst  senior  to  the 
south  triforium  gallery.  The  console  was  placed  behind 
the  decani  lay  clerks,  and  a long  movement  of  upwards 
of  ninety  feet,  without  the  aid  of  pneumatic  action, 
made  the  touch  of  the  instrument  intolerably  heavy. 
Longhurst  also  put  in  new  keys  and  rebuilt  the  swell, 
extending  the  compass  to  tenor  C.  A few  years  later 
two  octaves  of  pedals  were  added,  and  one  octave  of 
pedal  pipes  from  CCC  to  CC.  The  last-named  addi- 
tion was  not  altogether  approved  by  Highmore  Skeats, 
the  organist,  who,  to  use'  his  own  expression,  “ had 
never  learnt  to  dance,”  and  the  story  goes  that  he 
would  depute  to  his  assistant  the  task  of  showing  off 
the  qualities  of  the  pedal  pipes.  Greene’s  organ  must 
have  been  a thoroughly  sound  piece  of  work,  for  it 
lasted  for  upwards  of  one  hundred  years  ; and  although 
in  the  later  stages  of  its  career  the  mechanism  was  so 
faulty  that  no  one  except  the  cathedral  organist  or  his 
deputy  could  play  upon  it,  the  tone  of  the  diapasons 
was  so  good  that  they  were  incorporated  in  the  new 
organ  which  was  erected  by  Henry  Willis  in  1886. 
Specifications  of  the  organs  of  Bridge,  Greene  and 
Willis  will  be  found  in  an  appendix. 

To  revert  to  the  general  history  of  the  choir.  The 
litany  was  chanted  by  two  lay  clerks1  until  1704, 
when  the  duty  was  transferred  to  the  minor  canons. 
Twenty  years  later  the  substitutes  were  abolished,  or 
1 This  is,  or  was  until  recently,  the  custom  at  Lincoln  Cathedral. 

456 


THE  CHOIR  AND  ORGAN 

rather  their  office  was  merged  in  that  of  the  minor 
canons  by  providing  that  whenever  a vacancy  occurred 
amongst  the  substitutes  it  should  be  filled  by  a minor 
canon.  At  this  date  (1724)  none  of  the  substitutes 
were  in  holy  orders,  and  there  has  been  some  doubt 
whether  they  acted  as  deputies  for  the  minor  canons 
or  for  the  lay  clerks.  It  is  certain,  however,  that 
originally  they  were  intended  to  act  for  the  former, 
since  they  are  described  in  the  church  books  as  “ in 
loco  minorum  canonicorum  deservientes .”  Possibly  their 
duties  never  extended  to  the  priests’  part  in  the  service 
but  merely  to  that  for  which  all  the  members  of  the 
choir  (minor  canons  included)  were  responsible.  The 
first  lesson  was  read  by  the  lay  clerks  in  turn  down  to 
1770,  when  an  order  of  chapter  enacted  that  for  the 
future  both  lessons  should  be  read  by  minor  canons 
“ from  their  seats  in  the  choir.”  The  brazen  eagle 
which  since  the  Restoration  had  been  placed  between 
the  seats  of  the  singers,  facing  north,  was  now  relegated 
to  the  library,  where  it  remained  until  the  year  1847, 
when  it  was  brought  back  to  the  choir  and  placed  in 
its  present  position,  the  dean  and  canons  undertaking 
“ to  read  the  lessons  at  the  lectern  on  Sundays  and 
precum  days.”  The  latter  expression  is  a piece  of 
Canterbury  jargon  which  requires  a little  explanation. 
The  precum  days  at  Canterbury  are  those  days  on 
which  according  to  the  statutes  the  whole  of  the 
prayers  are  said  by  the  dean,  “ if  he  be  at  home,”  or 
in  his  absence  by  the  vice-dean.  A rota  or  ordo  of 
prayers  and  sermons  for  the  year  is  drawn  up  at  the 
St.  Katherine’s  audit  (November  25),  and  the  days  on 
which  the  whole  of  the  service  is  performed  by  the 
dean  or  vice-dean  are  placed  under  the  heading 
ordo  extra  Precum. 

Of  the  chorister-boys,  upon  whose  proficiency 
the  choral  service  has  for  many  years  past  been 
in  a great  measure  dependent,  we  have  hitherto 
said  very  little.  The  provision  made  for  them  by  the 

457 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

statutes  was  particularly  liberal,  for  in  addition  to  a 
money  payment  equivalent  to  between  thirty  and 
forty  pounds  at  the  present  day  they  could  get  their 
commons  at  the  peticanons’  hall,  and  nominally  they 
were  entitled  to  a free  education.  The  value  of  the 
latter,  except  as  far  as  musical  training  went,  was  a 
doubtful  asset,  for  their  master  apparently  did  not  do 
much  beyond  training  their  voices.  At  any  rate, 
religious  instruction  did  not  come  within  his  purview, 
for  a question  in  Laud’s  visitation  articles  elicited  the 
fact  that  at  that  date  (1634)  this  duty  was  entrusted 
to  the  usher  of  the  King’s  school.  Perhaps  the  re- 
muneration of  the  choristers  was  purposely  fixed  at  a 
high  rate  on  account  of  the  special  danger  which  a 
boy  with  a good  voice  incurred  of  being  kidnapped 
and  sent  off  to  serve  the  King’s  Chapel.  In  the 
sixteenth  century,  and  in  the  early  years  of  the  seven- 
teenth, commissions  were  granted  to  private  persons 
giving  them  the  right  “ to  take  up  children  ” for  the 
Chapels  Royal,  and  several  instances  are  recorded  of 
the  impressment  of  Canterbury  choristers  and  of  their 
subsequent  ransom  by  the  cathedral  authorities.  Even 
“ little  Selby,”  the  organist’s  son,  was  spirited  away 
to  Windsor  and  only  rescued  after  considerable  ex- 
pense and  trouble.  It  would  seem,  however,  that 
those  who  held  these  commissions  were  willing  to  use 
their  powers  on  behalf  of  cathedral  chapters  if  the 
latter  made  it  worth  their  while,  since  we  read  that 
the  dean  and  chapter  on  more  than  one  occasion 
paid  money  to  an  individual  who  promised  “ to  take 
up  children  for  our  church.”  One  wonders  what 
sort  of  service  these  kidnapped  choristers  put  in. 
Possibly,  when  once  accustomed  to  their  new  sur- 
roundings, they  attacked  “ Tallis  ” and  “ Tye  ” with 
as  much  vigour  as  the  victims  of  the  naval  pressgangs 
attacked  the  French  fleet. 

It  was  not  until  the  nineteenth  century  was  well 
advanced  that  any  serious  attempts  were  made  to 
458 


T H E CHOIR  AND  ORGAN 

give  the  choristers  a fair  general  education.  The 
appointment  of  a grammar  master  in  1845  has  done 
much  in  this  direction.  For  more  than  forty  years 


The  Choir  School  (J formerly 
the  Monastic  Brewery) 


the  office  was  filled  by  the  late  Joseph  Plant,  for  whose 
memory  many  [generations  of  ex-choristers  entertain  a 
most  affectionate  regard.  The  lack  of  a boarding-school 
is  from  some  points  of  view  a disadvantage  both 

459 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

to  the  boys  themselves  and  to  the  cathedral  music. 
Hitherto,  however,  the  establishment  of  such  an 
institution  has  not  been  found  practicable.  The 
danger  of  an  epidemic  breaking  out  in  a boarding- 
school  has  to  be  reckoned  with,  as  such  a contretemps 
may  mean  the  suspension  of  the  choral  service.  At 
Canterbury,  where  the  boys  are  scattered  about  the 
city,  the  number  of  choristers  incapacitated  for  duty 
at  the  same  time  has  never  been  so  great  as  to  make 
this  necessary. 

In  all  cathedrals  of  the  new  foundation  the  pre- 
centor is  chosen  from  the  minor  canons.  His  duties 
as  defined  by  the  Canterbury  statute  are  “ to  lead  the 
choir  ; choose  the  music  to  be  sung ; mark  the 
attendances  of  dean,  canons  and  other  ministers 
attending  the  divine  offices ; and  take  charge  of  the 
choir  books.” 

The  choice  of  the  music  is  a very  difficult  and 
delicate  matter,  since  individual  tastes  vary,  and  there 
is  always  immense  divergence  of  opinion  as  to  what 
ought  and  what  ought  not  to  be  sung  in  church.  At 
Canterbury  the  list  of  “ services  ” and  anthems  sung 
in  the  cathedral  is  an  exceptionally  long  one,  the 
supply  of  the  former  being  sufficient  for  two  months 
without  repetition,  and  the  latter  recurring  as  a rule 
not  more  than  twice  or  thrice  in  twelve  months.  In 
such  an  extensive  repertory  composers  of  almost  all 
schools  of  church  music  are  represented,  and  an 
examination  of  the  weekly  schedules  will  show  that 
an  honest  attempt  is  made  to  maintain  a fair  balance 
between  the  compositions  of  the  old  masters  and  those 
of  modern  times.  Many  years  ago  the  dean  and 
chapter  passed  a resolution  that  “Tallis  his  Te  Deum  ” 
should  be  sung  every  Sunday  morning.  How  long  it 
was  before  they  were  constrained  to  rescind  this  order 
history  does  not  relate.  Tallis’s  service  in  D is  still 
regularly  sung  in  the  cathedral,  but  the  Doric  mode 
is  not  understanded  of  the  people  to-day,  and  any 
460 


THE  CHOIR  AND  ORGAN 

attempt  to  inflict  it  upon  a mixed  congregation 
every  Sunday  morning  would  be  disastrous. 

At  the  present  time  (1912)  the  general  standard  of 
efficiency  maintained  by  the  choir  of  Canterbury 
Cathedral  is  a very  high  one.  The  most  character- 
istic feature  perhaps  is  the  care  and  expression  dis- 
played in  the  chanting  of  the  Psalms.  For  thirty  years 
the  choir  has  been  under  the  directorship  of  Precentor 
Helmore,  to  whose  unremitting  zeal  much  of  the 
efficiency  and  reverence  with  which  the  choral  service 
is  now  rendered  in  the  mother-church  of  Canterbury 
is  due. 

C.  E.  W. 

A LIST  OF  THE  ORGANISTS  (1400  ?-i9i2) 

Pre-Reformation  Organists : 

John  Moundjeld , described  in  Causton’s 

“ Obituary  of  the  Monks  of  Christ  Church, 
Canterbury,”  (D.  14)  as  “ eximius  organista.” 
Ob.  1407. 

William  Bonyngton , “ in  cantu  et  ludo  organico 
egregio  eruditus  ” (Causton).  Ob.  1411. 

William  Stanys , “precentor  et  suo  tempore  in 
ecclesia  Xti  organista  ” (Causton).  D.  1420. 

John  Cranhroke , “ suis  temporibus  organista 
eximius.”  Ob.  1445. 

Thomas  Chart , “ in  musicis  et  organicis  bene 
instructus.”  Ob.  1499. 

1534.  John  W odynshorozve , “ Sol’  fratri  Johi  Wodnys- 
borowe  pro  organis  pulsand’,  Xs”  (Sacrist’s 
accounts). 

Post- Reformation  Organists : 

1547.  William  Selby , was  master  of  the  choristers  from 
1542,  and  was  appointed  organist  in  1547. 
He  was  superseded  by  Thomas  Bull,  as 
master  of  the  choristers  in  Queen  Mary’s 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

reign,  who  presumably  also  acted  as  organist. 
In  Queen  Elizabeth’s  reign  Selby  was  re- 
instated. In  1583,  after  forty  years  of  service, 
when  he  was  no  doubt  becoming  infirm, 
Matthew  Godwin  was  appointed  joint 
organist. 

[ 1 5 5 3-1 558.  T homas  Bull.\ 

1583.  Matthew  Godwin , Mus.Bac.,  was  appointed  joint 
organist  with  Selby.  In  1585  he  became 
organist  of  Exeter  Cathedral,  and,  dying 
there  in  the  following  year,  he  was  buried 
under  the  north  tower  of  that  cathedral. 
His  epitaph  describes  him  as  “ a gentle,  pious 
and  clever  youth,  the  most  skilful  chief 
musician  of  the  Cathedrals  of  Canterbury  and 
Exeter,”  and  that  at  the  time  of  his  death  he 
was  aged  seventeen  years  and  five  months. 

1590.  Thomas  Stores  is  mentioned  in  the  treasurers’ 
accounts  for  1590  as  organist,  but  the  Act 
Books  and  accounts  for  several  years  are 
missing  at  about  this  period,  so  one  cannot 
ascertain  how  long  he  held  office.  He  was 
also  a lay  clerk. 

1598.  George  Marsony  M.A.,  also  a minor  canon  and 
master  of  the  choristers.  He  is  probably  the 
George  Marson  mentioned  in  Grove’s  “ Dic- 
tionary of  Music  ” as  a composer  of  madrigals. 
D.  1831. 

1631.  Valentine  Rother. 

1640.  Thomas  T unstall  lost  his  office  at  the  time  of 
the  Great  Rebellion. 

1661.  Thomas  Gibhes , was  organist  from  1661  to 
1669,  but  there  is  no  record  of  his  appoint- 
ment, resignation  or  death. 

1669.  Richard  Chomley , resigned  in  1675  “ on  account 
of  his  age  and  other  infirmities.” 

1675.  Robert  Wren.  On  his  appointment  the  salary 
was  raised  to  .£40.  He  died  in  1691  and  was 


462 


THE  CHOIR  AND  ORGAN 

buried  in  the  cloister.  For  two  years  before 
his  death  he  appears  to  have  had  a deputy, 
since  the  following  entry  occurs  in  the 
Treasurers’  accounts : “ Paid  Mr.  Smith,  the 
organist,  2 years’  salary,  viz.  fro  annis  1690, 
1691,  .£10.”  A “ Service  in  E”  and  three 
anthems  of  his  composing,  viz.  “ O give 
thanks,”  “ I beheld  ” and  “ Teach  me,  O 
Lord,”  were  for  many  years  sung  in  the 
cathedral. 

1692.  Nicholas  Wotton  was  removed  from  his  office  in 
1697  ; the  cause  is  not  stated  in  the  Act 
Book.  He  died  in  1700  and  was  buried  in 
the  north  aisle  of  the  nave.  Composer  of  a 
“ Service  ” in  C and  of  some  anthems,  e.g. 
“ Given  to  Nicholas  Wotton  at  singing 
ye  first  anthem  of  his  compositing,  10s.” 
(Treasurers’  Accounts). 

1697.  William  Porter , received  the  organist’s  stipend 

for  the  last  half-year  of  1697  and  for  the  first 
quarter  of  1698  (Treasurers’  Accounts). 

1698.  Daniel  Henstridge . Died  1736  and  was  buried 

in  the  cathedral.  Composer  of  a “ Service  ” 
in  D and  of  the  following  anthems,  “ I will 
magnify  Thee,”  “ Blessed  be  the  Lord,” 
“ O be  joyful  in  God  ” and  “ Behold  how 
good  and  joyful.” 

1736.  William  Raylton , a pupil  of  Dr.  Croft.  Died 
1757.  Composer  of  the  following  anthems  : 
“ Great  is  the  Lord  ” and  “ Behold  I bring  you 
glad  tidings  ” ; and  of  “ Services  ” in  E and 
A ; the  latter  is  still  on  the  Precentor’s  list. 

1757.  Samuel  Porter , a pupil  of  Dr.  Maurice  Greene, 
organist  of  St.  Paul’s  Cathedral.  Died  1803 
and  was  buried  in  the  cloister.  Composer  of 
two  “ Services,”  five  anthems,  a kyrie,  suffrages 
for  the  King’s  accession  service,  and  nine 
chants,  which  were  published  by  his  son,  the 

463 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

Rev.  James  Porter,  master  of  the  College 
School,  Worcester.  His  service  in  D,  de- 
scribed in  Grove’s  “ Dictionary”  as  a 
u pleasing  composition,”  is  still  used  in  several 
cathedrals,  but  in  recent  years  has  been 
discontinued  at  Canterbury. 

1803.  Highmore  Skeats , born  1760,  was  organist  of 
Ely  Cathedral  from  1778-1803.  Composer  of 
a “ Service  ”,  in  C and  of  a metrical  anthem 
beginning  “ The  righteous  souls  that  take 
their  flight,”  which  is  still  sung  in  Canterbury 
Cathedral.  Died  1831,  buried  in  St. 
Martin’s  churchvard. 

v 

1831.  Thomas  Evance  Jones . Born  1805.  Chorister 
1813,  lay  clerk  1822,  master  of  the  choristers 
1830.  Composer  of  church  music.  His  only 
published  anthem  is  “ Unto  Him  that  loved 
us.”  Died  1872,  buried  in  St.  Martin’s 
churchyard. 

1873.  William  Henry  Longhur st.  Born  1819.  Chorister 
1828,  assistant  organist  and  lay  clerk  1836, 
F.R.C.O.  1865,  Mus.  Doc.  Cantuar  1875. 
Retired  as  honorary  organist  1898.  Died 
1904,  buried  in  Harbledown  churchyard. 
Dr.  Longhurst  composed  several  anthems, 
services,  songs,  &c.,  and  an  oratorio,  “ David 
and  Absalom.” 

1898.  Harry  Crane  Perrin.  Pupil  of  Sir  Robert 
Stewart.  Organist  of  St.  Michael’s,  Coventry, 
1 892-1898.  Composer  of  the  cantatas  “ Abode 
of  Worship  ” and  “ Pan’s  Pipes,”  morning  and 
evening  services,  anthems,  songs, &c.  Resigned 
in  1908  on  his  appointment  to  Professorship 
of  Music  in  McGill  University,  Montreal. 

1908.  Clement  Charlton  Palmer , F.R.C.O.  1888,  Mus. 

Doc.  Oxford  1896,  assistant  organist  of 
Lichfield  Cathedral  1890-97,  organist  of  the 
parish  church,  Ludlow,  1897-1908.  Composer 


464 


THE  CHOIR  AND  ORGAN 

of  a morning  and  evening  service  in  E flat, 
evening  service  in  F minor,  morning  and 
evening  service  in  F for  men’s  voices ; 
“ Casabianca,”  ballad  for  chorus  and 
orchestra,  &c. 

APPENDIX 

Specification  of  the  organ  built  by  Lancelot  Pease , 
1662-3. 

Great  Organ 

(1)  Diapason,  metal. 

(2)  Diapason,  stopped  wood. 

(3)  Principal,  metal. 

(4)  Principal,  metal. 

(5)  Fifteenth,  metal. 

(6)  Fifteenth,  metal. 

[ j ) Great  twelfth,  metal. 

(8)  Small  twelfth,  metal. 

(9)  Two-and-twentieth,  metal. 

(10)  Two-and-twentieth,  metal. 

(11)  Flute,  metal. 

(12)  Recorder,  metal. 

(13)  Tierce,  metal. 

Quire  Organ 

(1)  Stopped  diapason,  wood. 

(2)  Stopped  diapason,  wood. 

(3)  Principal,  metal. 

(4)  Fifteenth,  metal. 

(5)  Fifteenth,  wood. 

(6)  Flute,  wood. 

Specification  of  the  organ  built  by  Bernard  Smith , 
1683-84. 

Great  Organ 

(1)  Open  diapason,  metal. 

(2)  Stopped  diapason,  wood. 

2 G 


465 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

(3)  Principal,  metal. 

(4)  Nason,  in  unison  with  the  principal,  wood. 

(5)  Cornet  of  four  ranks,  metal. 

(6)  Quint,  to  the  principal,  metal. 

(7)  Fifteenth,  metal. 

(8)  Flageolet,  metal. 

(9)  Furniture,  three  ranks,  metal. 

(10)  Trumpet. 

Quire  Organ 

(1)  Principal  (in  the  front),  metal. 

(2)  Diapason,  wood. 

(3)  Recorder. 

(4)  Fifteenth. 

Specification  oj  the  organ  built  by  Richard  Bridge , 

I752-3- 

Great  Organ 

(1)  The  present  open  diapason  (to  be  amended  as 
shall  be  needful),  metal,  55  pipes. 

(2)  Stop  diapason,  wood  and  metal,  55  pipes. 

(3)  Principal,  metal,  55  pipes. 

(4)  Twelfth,  metal,  55  pipes. 

(5)  Fifteenth,  metal,  55  pipes. 

(6)  Tierce,  metal,  55  pipes. 

(7)  Largiot,  metal,  55  pipes. 

(8)  Sesquialtera,  of  four  ranks,  116  pipes. 

(9)  Furniture,  of  four  ranks,  104  pipes. 

(10)  Cornet,  of  four  ranks,  108  pipes. 

(11)  Trumpet,  metal,  55  pipes. 

(12)  Clarion,  metal,  55  pipes. 

Choir  Organ 

(1)  Stop-diapason,  wood  and  metal,  55  pipes. 

(2)  Principal  (the  old  pipes  amended)  wood  and 
metal,  55  pipes. 

(3)  Flute,  wood  and  metal,  55  pipes. 

466 


THE  ORGAN 

(4)  Fifteenth,  metal,  55  pipes. 

(5)  Vox  humana,  metal,  55  pipes. 

(6)  Mixture  of  three  ranks,  treble  and  base,  165 
pipes. 

“ The  organ  to  consist  of  three  rows  of  keys,  the 
compass  from  double  gamut  long  eighths  D la  sol  re 
in  alt.” 

Echo  or  Szuell 

(1)  Open  diapason,  metal,  32  pipes. 

(2)  Stop  diapason,  metal,  32  pipes. 

(3)  German  flute,  metal,  32  pipes. 

(4)  Trumpet,  metal,  32  pipes. 

(5)  Principal,  metal,  32  pipes. 

(6)  Hautboy,  metal,  32  pipes. 

The  organ  rebuilt  by  Samuel  Greene  in  1784,  at  the 
time  of  its  destruction  in  1886,  contained  the  following 
stop  : 

Great , 12  stops 

(1)  Open  diapason. 

(2)  Open  diapason. 

(3)  Stopped  diapason. 

(4)  Clarabella,  treble  (in  place  of  five-rank  cornet). 

(5)  Principal. 

(6)  Fifteenth. 

(7)  Twelfth. 

(8)  Sesquialtera,  III  ranks. 

(9)  Mixture,  II  ranks. 

(10)  Trumpet,  treble. 

(11)  Great  trumpet  (throughout). 

(12)  Clarion  (throughout). 

Choir , 6 stops 

(13)  Stopped  diapason. 

(14)  Dulciana. 

(1 5)  Stopped  flute. 


467 


CANTERBURT  CATHEDRAL 

(1 6)  Open  flute. 

(17)  Principal. 

(18)  Cremona. 

Swell,  10  stop 

(19)  Stopped  diapason. 

(20)  Double  open  diapason. 

(21)  Unison  open  diapason. 

(22)  Principal. 

(23)  Fifteenth. 

(24)  Twelfth. 

(25)  Sesquialtera,  III  ranks. 

(26)  Cornopean. 

(27)  Trumpet. 

(28)  Hautboy. 

Pedal,  2 stops 

(29)  Stopped  diapason,  wood. 

(30)  Open  diapason,  wood. 

Couplers 

(1) T Swell  to  great. 

(2)  Pedal  to  great. 

(3)  Pedal  to  choir. 

Specification  of  the  organ  built  by  Henry  Willis  in 
1886. 

Great  Organ 

(1)  Double  open  diapason,  metal,  16  ft, 

(2)  Open  diapason  (large),  8 ft. 

(3)  Open  diapason  (small),  8 ft, 

(4)  Salcional,  8 ft. 

(5)  Stopped  diapason,  metal  to  mid  C,  8 ft. 

(6)  Claribel  flute,  8 ft. 

(7)  Principal,  4 ft* 

(8)  Flute  harmonique,  4 ft. 

(9)  Twelfth,  3 ft. 

(10)  Fifteenth,  2 ft. 

468 


THE  ORGAN 

(n)  Piccolo,  2 ft. 

(12)  Mixture  (four  ranks). 

(13)  Double  trumpet,  16  ft. 

(14)  Cornopean,  8 ft. 

(15)  Clarion^  4 ft. 

Swell  Organ 

(16)  Double  open  diapason,  metal  and  wood,  16  ft. 

(17)  Open  diapason,  8 ft. 

(18)  Lieblich  gedact,  8 ft. 

(19)  Salcional,  8 ft. 

(20)  Vox  angelica,  8 ft. 

(21)  Octave,  4 ft. 

(22)  Flageolet,  2 ft. 

(23)  Mixture  (three  ranks). 

(24)  Contrafagotto,  16  ft. 

(25)  Trumpet,  8 ft. 

(26)  Hautboy,  8 ft. 

(27)  Vox  humana,  8 ft. 

(28)  Clarion,  4 ft. 

Solo  Organ  (in  Swell-box) 

(29)  Flute  harmonique,  8 ft. 

(30)  Concert  flute,  4 ft. 

(31)  Orchestral  oboe,  8 ft. 

(32)  Corno  di  bassetto,  8 ft. 

(33)  Tuba,  8 ft. 

(34)  Clarion,  4 ft. 

Choir  Organ 

(35)  Lieblich  gedact,  16  ft. 

(36)  Lieblich  gedact,  8 ft. 

(37)  Open  diapason,  8 ft. 

(38)  Dulciana,  8 ft.1 

(39)  Flauto  traverso,  8 ft. 

(40)  Flute,1  4 ft. 

(41)  Gemshorn,  4 ft. 

(42)  Corno  di  bassetto,  8 ft. 

1 See  note  next  page. 


469 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 
Pedale 

(43)  Double  open  diapason,  wood,1  33  ft. 

(44)  Open  diapason,  wood,  16  ft. 

(45)  Open  diapason,  metal,  16  ft.  (not  yet  inserted). 

(46)  Violone,  metal,  16  ft. 

(47)  Bourdon,  wood,  16  ft. 

(48)  Octave,  metal,  8 ft. 

(49)  Flute,  wood,  8 ft.1 

(50)  Violoncello,  metal,  8 ft. 

(51)  Posaune,  metal,  16  ft. 

(52)  Clarion,  metal,  8 ft.1 

1 Added  by  Messrs . Norman  and  Beard , who  now  have 
charge  of  the  organ . 

The  action , with  the  exception  of  the  swell  pedals , is 
electro-pneumatic  throughout , and  has  proved  itself  ( after 
twenty-five  years  of  constant  use)  to  be  thoroughly  efficient . 

From  its  position  the  organ  is  not  altogether  well 
adapted  to  vocal  accompaniments , since  it  is  frequently 
inaudible  to  the  members  of  the  choir  while  they  are 
singing  ; but  to  listeners  this  defect  is  less  apparent , 
though  it  cannot  be  denied  that  to  those  that  sit  in  the 
choir  the  quality  of  the  tone  is  occasionally  somewhat 
hard  and  unsympathetic. 

The  pedal  organ , however , leaves  little  to  be  desired , 
the  tone  of  the  thirty-two-foot  being  unusually  fine. 

The  great  organ  is  placed  at  the  back  of  the  triforium 
gallery  and  for  that  reason  loses  some  of  its  directness  and 
force.  Still , on  the  whole  the  instrument  is  undoubtedly 
a fine  specimen  of  Willis's  work , and  can  easily  hold  its 
own  with  more  modern  cathedral  organs  of  greater 
pretensions. 

C.  E.  W. 


470 


CHAPTER  XX 

THE  BELLS 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  pre-Norman 
cathedral  was  furnished  with  bells.  It  is  said  that 
St.  Dunstan  not  only  gave  bells  to  Canterbury 
Cathedral,  but  also  provided  rules  for  their  use.  But 
nothing  definite  is  told  us  about  either  bells  or  rules. 

The  first  recorded  gift  of  a bell  to  Christ  Church 
was  made  very  early  in  the  twelfth  century  by  Prior 
Ernulf.  This  bell  was  recast  by  his  successor,  Conrad, 
who  himself  gave  four  smaller  ones ; and  about 
sixty  years  later  ( c . 1160)  Prior  Wibert  added  a sixth 
of  very  large  size.  Wibert’s  bell  required  thirty- 
two  men  to  ring  it.  Inasmuch  as  it  would  be  impossible 
for  thirty-two  men  to  hang  on  to  a rope,  it  is  clear  that 
the  bell  was  set  in  motion  by  men  treading  upon  a 
plank  fastened  across  the  head-stock — a method  of 
bell-ringing  still  in  vogue  upon  the  Continent.1 

From  the  Christ  Church  Obituary  we  learn  that 
Wibert’s  bell  was  hung  “ in  Clocario,”  by  which  is 
doubtless  meant  the  detached  bell-tower  on  the  south 
side  of  the  cathedral,  which  (as  we  have  already 
related)  was  destroyed  by  the  earthquake  of  1382. 
It  is  probable  that  all  the  six  bells  mentioned  above 
were  in  this  campanile. 

In  1343,  when  Hathbrand  was  prior,  the  bells  in 
the  Clocarium  were  rehung.  Their  names  as  recorded 
in  the  monastic  registers  were  “ Jesus,”  “Dunstan,” 
“ Mary,”  “ Thomas,”  “ Elphege  ” and  “ Crundale,”  of 

1 See  “ The  Church  Bells  of  Kent,”  by  J.  C.  L.  Stahlschmidt,  London, 
1887,  p.  193. 


47 1 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

which  “ Jesus  ” and  “ Dunstan ” were  the  gift  of  Hath- 
brand,  and  “Thomas”  of  Prior  Eastry  in  1316;  the 
latter  was  a very  large  bell,  weighing  8000  lb. 

Eastry,  in  1317,  also  placed  three  bells  in  the 
great  central  tower,  to  which  Archbishop  Arundel  in 
1408  added  four  more  heavy  bells,  the  tenor  weighing 
7188  lb.  Mr.  Stahlschmidt  conjectures  that  the 
Archbishop  merely  paid  for  the  recasting  of  the  bells 
which  had  been  broken  by  the  fall  of  the  campanile 
in  1382.  But  the  names  of  the  bells  of  the  Arundel 
ring  are  not  those  of  the  bells  which  formerly  hung 
in  the  campanile.  On  the  other  hand,  “ Crundale,” 
“ Elphy 55  and  “ Thomas 55  reappear  in  the  Angel 
Steeple  after  the  destruction  of  the  campanile.  The 
“ Arundel  ring  ” was  blessed  by  the  Archbishop  on 
April  8,  1409,  when  the  bells  received  the  following 
names  : (1)  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  (2)  St.  Blaise, 
(3)  St.  Gabriel,  (4)  St.  Mary.1 

To  these  Prior  Chillenden  added  a fifth,  dedicated 
under  the  invocation  of  St.  Thomas. 

When  the  central  tower  was  rebuilt,  towards  the 
close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  the  “ Arundel  ring  ” was 
removed  to  the  north-western  tower,  which  on  that 
account  became  known  as  the  Arundel  steeple. 

Eastry’s  bells  and  “ Crundale,”  “ Elphy  ” and 
“ Thomas,”  however,  were  rehung  in  the  new  central 
tower.  The  latter  bells  were  confiscated  by  Henry  VIII 
at  the  time  of  the  suppression  of  the  priory,  and  sold 
to  Henry  Crisp,  of  Birchington,  and  Robert  St.  Leger, 
of  Faversham.  If  we  can  accept  as  correct  the  weight 
of  bell-metal  given  in  a document  quoted  by  Battely, 
viz.  24,646  lb.,  it  is  evident  that  the  bells  must  have 
been  abnormally  heavy.2 

1 “ Arundel’s  Register,”  in  the  Lambeth  Library,  quoted  by  Stahl- 
schmidt as  above. 

2 Battely  professes  to  quote  from  the  records  of  the  Augmentation 
Office  (pp.  24, 25),  but  Mr.  Stahlschmidt  was  unable  to  find  the  document 
in  the  P.R.O. 

472 


THE  BELLS 

From  1540 — the  date  of  the  new  foundation — to 
the  present  da y (1912)  there  has  only  been  one  bell 
in  the  central  tower,  namely,  that  which  hangs  in  a 
pent-house  upon  the  leads  at  the  top  of  the  tower,  and 
is  known  as  “ Bell  Harry.5’  It  has  generally  been 
supposed  that  this  bell  was  given  to  the  church  by 
King  Henry  VIII,  and  some  writers  have  gone  so  far 
as  to  state  that  it  was  brought  back  by  that  monarch 
from  France  after  the  capture  of  Boulogne.  But 
the  bell,  which  has  no  connection  whatever  with 
Henry  VIII,  was  hung,  or  rehung,  in  the  cathedral 
as  far  back  as  1288,  e.g.  “ fer  R Dover  ad  fendendam 
unam  camfanam  que  dicitur  Henricus .”  1 This  was 

in  the  days  of  the  famous  Prior  Henry  of  Eastry,  who 
in  addition  to  the  bells  already  mentioned  gave  another 
and  smaller  bell,  which  was  to  serve  the  purpose  of 
summoning  the  Chapter.  Possibly  this  bell  was  named 
Harry  after  its  donor.  From  the  fact  that  at  a later 
date  “ Bell  Harry  55  is  mentioned  in  conjunction  with 
bells  in  the  central  tower,  it  seems  probable  that  it 
always  hung  there,  though  its  position  in  mediaeval 
times  is  never  actually  stated,  e.g.  “ fro  1 clafir  de 
Crundall  in  magno  camfanili , 5/.  4 J.”  “ Item  cum 

eodem  fro  1 Clafir  de  belle  hary , 2s.  6d.55  (Sacrist’s 
Accounts,  1452). 

The  voice  of  “ Bell  Harry  ” is  well  known  to  Canter- 
bury citizens,  for  it  is  heard  four  times  every  day,  viz. 
at  5.45  in  summer  and  at  6.45  a.m.  in  winter,  when  the 
bell  is  rung  for  ten  minutes  (this  is  a survival  from  the 
days  when  early  prayers  were  said  in  the  church)  ; for 
ten  minutes  before  matins  and  evensong  ; and  again 
for  the  curfew  at  8 p.m.  On  the  death  of  the  Sovereign 
or  the  Archbishop  the  bell  is  tolled  for  one  hour. 

In  the  south-west  tower  or  Oxford  steeple  there 
were  five  bells  in  1499,  and  one,  namely,  “ Dunstan,” 
on  the  leads  of  the  same  tower  ( extra  Clocarium ). 
“ Bell  Dunstan  ” was  cast  in  the  days  of  Prior  Molash, 
1 Canterbury  MS.  D.  E.  ii.  84. 


473 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 

and  was  blessed  by  the  Bishop  of  Ross  in  1459  (Stone’s 
Chronicle , p.  77).  It  was  recast  by  John  Bayle,  bell- 
founder,  in  1499,  and  at  that  time  weighed  7200  lb. 
Bayle  also  rehung  the  other  bells  in  the  Oxford  steeple, 
the  tenor  of  which  ring  weighed  2133  lb. 

There  were  also  at  the  above  date  three  other 
bells  in  the  latter  tower,  called  the  “ Quarres.” 
Possibly  these  may  have  been  the  quarter  bells  of  a 
clock.  There  certainly  was  a clock  in  the  Oxford 
steeple  in  1551,  for  in  that  year  the  Chapter  ordered 
that  the  hammer  be  set  higher,  and  windows  opened 
and  made  so  that  the  sound  may  enter  out  ” that  the 
clock  might  be  better  heard. 

“ Bell  Dunstan  ” was  recast  by  Michael  Derby,  of 
Stepney,  in  1663,  and  again  in  1684  by  Christopher 
Hodson,  who  added  16  cwt.  of  metal,  thereby  bringing 
up  the  weight  of  the  bell  to  69  cwt.  3 qr.  5 lb.  In 
1758  it  was  cracked  in  an  attempt  to  toll  it  by  striking 
it  with  a hammer,  and  was  recast  by  Thomas  Lester, 
of  London,  in  1762.  The  work  was  carried  out  in  the 
precincts  by  William  Chapman,  then  foreman  and 
afterwards  partner  with  Lester  and  Pack. 

The  bells  in  the  Arundel  steeple  were  rehung  in 
1634  by  Thomas  Crust.  The  tower  even  at  that  date 
was  apparently  in  a rickety  condition,  since  Crust  had 
to  contract  to  make  the  frame  for  the  bells  “ rest  upon 
the  ground.”  By  1726  the  state  of  the  tower  was 
so  bad  that  it  was  thought  prudent  to  remove  the 
bells  altogether.  The  work  was  entrusted  to  Samuel 
Knight,  of  Holborn,  who  took  down  the  six  bells  of 
the  “ Arundel  ring,”  recast  them  into  a peal  of  eight 
(with  the  exception  of  the  treble,  which  was  “ removed 
into  the  place  of  Bell  Harry,”  the  old  Bell  Harry 
being  recast  and  “ given  into  the  new  ring  ”),  and 
rehung  them  in  the  Oxford  steeple.  The  bells  of 
the  latter  tower  were  now  sold,  and  the  money 
received  for  them  was  spent  in  repairing  the  windows 
on  the  south  side  of  the  nave.  The  treble  of  Arundel 

474 


THE  BELLS 

had  been  recast  by  Joseph  Hatch,  of  Ulcombe,  in 
1635,  and  his  name  and  the  date  are  on  the  bell  at 
the  top  of  the  central  tower. 

There  are  now  ten  bells  in  the  Oxford  steeple,  and 
the  clock  bell  (Dunstan)  on  the  leads  outside. 

The  following  dimensions  and  inscriptions  are  from 
Stahlschmidt’s  “ Church  Bells  of  Kent  ” : 


Diameter 

I.  31  in.  Thomas  Mears,  London.  Fecit  a.d. 
1802.  Pace  Reddita. 

II.  32  „ T.  Powys,  D W.  Welfitt  & D H. 

Radcliffe.  Tr,  E.  Walsby,  Rr  T. 
Mears.  Fecit  1802. 

in.  34  „ Samul  Guls  Gostling,  A.M.  S.K.  1726 

A.D.  MDCCCLV. 

Benj.  Harrison,  A.M.  Thesaur0 
H.  G.  Austin,  Archit0 
C.  & G.  Mears,  Founders,  London. 
IV,  36  „ Gul.  Ayerst,  S.T.B.  Gul.  Egerton, 

LL.D.,  Johannes  Gostling,  A.M., 
Sam.  Knight.  1726. 

V.  38  „ Sam.  Holcombe,  S.T.P.,  John  Clark, 

S.T.P.  S.K.  1726. 

VI.  40  „ David  Wilkins,  S.T.P. , Edwardus 

Wake,  S.T.P.  S.K.  1726. 

A.D.  MCC.CLV. 

Benj.  Harrison,  A.M.  Thesaur0 
H.  G.  Austin,  Archit0 
C.  & G.  Mears,  Founders,  London. 
VII.  434  ,,  Johannes  Grandorge,  S.T.P., 

Johannes  Hancocke,  S.T.P.  S.K. 
1727 

VIII.  4 6£  „ Eduardus  Tenison,  S.T.P.,  Hon. 

Eduardus  Finch,  A.M.  S.K.  Fecit 
1728 

IX.  5 1 i ,,  Radulphus  Blomer,  S.T.P.,  Elias 
Sydal,  S.T.P.  S.K.  Fecit  1726. 


475 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 
N.  57  in.  Ye  ringers  all  that  prize  your  health 

AND  HAPPINESS, 

Be  sober,  merry,  wise,  and  you’ll  the 

SAME  POSSESS. 

Pack  and  Chapman  of  London. 
Fecit  1778. 

Clock  bell,  70  in.  Gulielmo  Friend,  S.T.P.  Decano 
Lester  & Pack  of  London.  Fecit  1762.  WM 
Chapman  molded  me. 

“ Bell  Harry,”  Joseph  Hatch  me  fecit  1635. 

In  1897  the  peal  of  ten  was  rehung  in  a steel  frame 
by  Thomas  Blackburn  of  Salisbury,  as  part  of  the 
reparation  of  the  Cathedral  undertaken  by  Dean 
Farrar  in  commemoration  of  its  thirteenth  centenary. 
At  the  same  time  quarter-chimes  were  added  to  the 
clock.  These  chimes  are  founded  on  the  8th  Gregorian 
Tone,  thus  serving  to  commemorate  the  landing  of 
Augustine  on  the  shores  of  Kent  a.d.  597. 

C.  E.  W. 


DEANS  AND  CANONS 

The  names  of  the  Deans  and  Prebendaries  from 
1540  to  1854  are  recorded  in  T.  Duffus  Hardy’s  edition 
of  Le  Neve’s  Fasti  Ecclesice  Anglican# . We  give 
below  a supplementary  list. 

Deans 

1857.  Henry  Alford* 

1871.  Robert  Payne  Smith. 

1895.  Frederic  William  Farrar. 

1903.  Henry  Wace, 

Canons 
1 st  Stall 

1862.  John  Thomas. 

1883.  William  Cadman. 

476 


DEANS  AND  CANONS 

1891.  John  Duncan. 

1895.  William  Page  Roberts. 

1908.  William  Danks. 

2nd  Stall 

Suspended  in  1845  on  the  death  of  F.  W.  Baylay. 

3 rd  Stall 

Suspended  in  1852  on  the  death  of  Francis  Dawson. 
4 th  Stall 

1869.  Edward  Parry  1 Archdeacons  of 

1890.  George  Rodney  Eden  V Canterbury  and 
1897.  William  Walsh  J Bishops  of  Dover. 

5 th  Stall 

1858.  William  John  Chesshyre. 

1 859.  James  Craigie  Robertson. 

1882.  Hon.  William  Henry  Fremantle. 

1895.  Arthur  James  Mason. 

6th  Stall 

Suspended  in  1852  on  the  death  of  Lord  Charles 
Thynne. 

7 th  Stall 

Suspended  in  1845  on  promotion  of  John  Peel. 

8 th  Stall 

1855.  William  Stone. 

1882.  Francis  James  Holland. 

1908.  Edward  Alexander  Stuart. 

9 th  Stall 

1887.  Benjamin  Frederic  Smith  } Archdeacons  of 
1900.  Henry  Maxwell  Spooner  J Maidstone. 


477 


10  th  Stall 

Suspended  in  1838  on  the  death  of  Philip  Hunt. 


CANTERBURY  CATHEDRAL 


nth  Stall 

1863.  Joseph  William  Blakesly. 

1872.  George  Rawlinson. 

1903.  Edward  Moore. 

12  th  Stall 

Suspended  in  1851  on  the  death  of  Hon.  J.  E. 
Boscawen. 


Finis. 


478 


INDEX 


Abbot,  Abp.,  321,  388 
Aberbrothock,  Abbey  of,  75 
Absolom,  Robert,  314 
Adam,  the  Forester  legend  of,  421 
iFlfric,  Abp.,  18 
Aithelgar,  Abp.,  relics  of,  282 
dEthelheard,  Abp.,  relics  of,  283 
iEthelm,  Abp.,  relics  of,  283 
Aix  in  Provence,  Tapestry  at,  280 
Alan,  Prior,  97,  105,  106,  266 
Albano,  Walter,  Cardinal  of,  38 
Albryght,  Ralph,  314 
Aldington,  216 
Aledon,  Robert  de,  244 
Alexander  V.,  Pope,  186 
Alford,  Dean,  366,  367,  368 
Alfred  Ealdorman,  384 
All  Souls  College,  Oxford,  197 
Almoner,  monastic,  247-248,  Rolls, 

398 

Almonry,  139;  chapel,  139;  school, 
248 

Alphonsus  Petrus,  160 

Altar,  High,  140, 173, 174, 175,  282, 

297>  338.  343.  347.  368,  371 
St.  Alphege,  174,  181 
St.  Audoen,  285 
St.  Augustine,  285 
St.  Bartholomew,  285 
St.  Clement,  285 
St.  Dunstan,  174,  181 
St.  Edmund  of  Abingdon,  385 
St.  Edward  the  Confessor,  78 
St.  Gregory,  403 
St.  John  the  Baptist,  285 
St.  John  the  Evangelist,  98, 
282,  285 


Altar,  High,  St.  Katherine,  285 
St.  Martin,  283 
St.  Mary  in  Black  Prince’s 
Chantry,  152  ; see  also  under 
Chapel 

St.  Mary  Magdalene,  285 
St.  Nicholas,  284 
St.  Paulinus,  285 
St.  Thomas  the  Apostle,  285 
St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury, 

78 

St.  Stephen,  283 
St.  Swithin,  20 
St.  Wilfrid,  13,  19,  98,  284 
“ Sword  Point,”  70,  73,  79, 
273,  275 

Holy  Cross,  30,  274 
Holy  Innocents,  285 
Holy  Trinity  in  Black  Prince’s 
Chapel,  152 
Alyn,  Hugh,  256 
“ Angel  Steeple,”  31,  21 1 
Anniversary  rolls,  398 
Anselm,  see  St.  Anselm 
Archbishops  of  Canterbury ; burial- 
places  of  Saxon  Archbishops,  375 
and  note ; Lanfranc  withdraws 
from  the  life  of  the  cloister,  34  ; 
primacy  settled  by  the  Council  of 
Winchester  (1072),  32-33  ; cere- 
mony of  the  reception  of  the 
Pallium,  38  ; struggles  with  the 
monks  of  Christ  Church,  106-1 16. 
See  also  under  the  names  of  the 
various  Archbishops 
Arundel,  Abp.,  168, 174  ; tomb  and 
chantry,  1 94-1 95,  274,  282 


479 


INDEX 


Arundel,  Earl  of,  147 
Arundel  Steeple,  report  on,  360  ; 
rebuilt,  361 
Ring,  472 
Asher,  Robert,  253 
As'pcTsorium , 279 
Atwell,  Will,  313 

Audit  House,  136  ; pulled  down  and 
rebuilt,  347 

Augustine,  Apostle  of  the  English, 
2,  9,  11 

Austin,  Geo.,  312,  361 

Baldwin,  Abp.,  election  of,  105  ; 

quarrel  with  monks,  107-1 14 
Balsar,  Will,  313 
Baptist,  Mr.  (Canon),  312 
Baptistery,  11,  12 
Bargrave,  Dean,  323,  325,  326 
Bargrave,  Dr.  John  (Canon),  341 
Barton,  Elizabeth,  216 
Bartoner’s  rolls,  398 
Battle,  Abbot  of,  265 
Beaufort,  Cardinal,  201 
Beaulieu  Abbey,  268 
Beck,  Richard,  Master  Mason, 
200 

Becket,  Abp.  Thomas ; early  life, 
57  ; Archdeacon,  56  ; Chancellor, 
58 ; Primate,  59 ; his  defence 
of  the  Canon  Law,  61  ; excom- 
municates the  Bishops,  63  ; exile 
and  return,  64  ; martyrdom,  66  ; 
burial,  68-69  > miracles,  69 ; 
Henry  IPs  penance,  74 ; trans- 
lation of  his  relics,  75,  76,  77, 122  ; 
jubilee,  76  ; shrine,  77-79  ; offer- 
ings at  the  shrine,  76  122,  15 1 ; 
reliquary  of  the  “Head,”  138; 
shrine  destroyed,  217,  218 
Bee,  Cornelius,  389  note 
Bekenore,  John,  158 
Bells,  471-475  ; names  of,  Crundel, 
471-472 ; Dunstan,  473,  474, 
475  ; Elphege,  471  ; Harry,  473  ; 
Jesus,  472  ; St.  Blaise,  St.  Gabriel, 
St.  John,  St.  Mary,  472 
480 


Bell-founders,  Bayle,  John  ; Chap- 
man, Will,  474,  476;  Derby, 
Michael,  474;  Hatch,  Joseph, 
475  J Knight,  Samuel,  474-475  ; 
Mears,  475  ; Pack  and  Chapman, 

475  1 

Bell  Hangers ; Blackburn,  Thomas, 

476  ; Crust,  Thomas,  474 

“ Bell-Harry  ” tower,  200,  209,  21 1 ; 

see  also  “ Angel  Steeple  ” 
Benedict,  Prior,  73,  77,  266 
Benson,  Abp.,  tomb  of,  375,  and  note 
Bernard  the  Goldsmith,  197 
Bertha,  Queen,  6,  172,  178 
Bible,  chained,  368 
Black  Death,  148,  164 
Black  Prince,  see  Edward,  Prince 
Blackfriars,  Council  of,  165 
Blechyndon,  Dr.  (Canon),  320 
Blomer,  Dr.  (Canon),  346 
Blomfield,  Sir  Arthur,  370 
Bocking,  Dr.,  216 
Boleyn,  George  (Canon),  299 
Bologna,  University  of,  270 
Boniface  IX,  indulgence  of,  for 
rebuilding  the  Nave,  168 
Boniface,  Abp.,  128  ; opposed  by 
the  monks  of  Christ  Church,  128- 
132 

Boulser,  Mr.,  312 
Bourchier,  Abp.,  155,  206 
Boys,  John,  his  description  of  the 
Cathedral  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  344-5 

Bradwardine,  Abp.  Thomas,  148 
Bredkyrke,  Thomas,  313 
Bregwyn,  Abp.,  relics  of,  283 
Brenchley,  Joan,  Chantry  Chapel  of, 
203,  350  ; Sir  William,  203 
Breton,  Richard  le,  64,  68,  70 
Brewhouse,  monastic,  3 67 
Broc,  Ralph  de,  64 
Broke,  Mr.,  312 
Brookwood,  268 
Brown,  John,  175 

Bubwith,  Bishop,  Chantry  Chapel 
of,  at  Wells,  182 


INDEX 


Buckingham,  Bishop  John,  181  ; 

Chantry  Chapel  of,  182,  274 
Bull,  Thomas,  313 
Bulls  of  Popes  granting  privileges  to 
the  monks  of  Christ  Church,  225 
Bur,  castle  of,  63 
Burnell,  Robert,  133 
Burrough,  James,  new  altar-piece 

by  (1733),  348 

Burton,  James,  Prior  of  Folkestone, 
256 

John,  314 
Cade,  Jack,  204 

Caen,  St.  Stephen’s  Church  at,  25 
Caen  Stone,  15 
Calcote,  Thomas,  314 
Caldecote,  Manor  of,  142,  262 
Callowe,  Thomas,  313 
Campanile,  fall  of,  165 
Cancellor,  James,  313 
Candlesticks,  purchase  of,  368 
Canterbury  Cathedral : Roman 

Church,  5 ; Eadmer’s  des- 
cription of,  10  ; Cuthbert’s 
Baptistery,  1 1 ; enlarged  by 
Odo,  13  ; attacked  by  the 
Danes,  14;  rebuilt  by  Lan- 
franc,  16  ; grand  plan  of,  26  ; 
dedication,  32  ; Anselm’s  en- 
largement, 36-45  ; crypt,  41; 
Conrad’s  decoration  of  the 
choir,  45  ; dedication,  45- 
6,  Gervase’s  description, 
46  ; carvings  on  the  capitals 
in  the  crypt,  50  ; Treasury 
built,  50  ; services  suspended 
after  Abp.  Becket’s  murder  ; 
reconciliation,  70  ; the  great 
fire  of  1174;  choir  rebuilt 
by  Guillaume  de  Sens  and 
William  the  Englishman,  89- 
102  ; corona,  100  ; stained 
glass,  124 ; cloister  rebuilt, 
124;  nave  rebuilt,  158,  163, 
164, 168, 171  ; floor  repaved, 
349 ; choir  repaved,  175  ; 


south-west  tower  rebuilt, 
198-199;  central  tower  re- 
built, 207-8  ; pinnacles  of, 
208,  buttressing  arches,  210  ; 
eve  of  Reformation,  272- 
286 ; Henry  VIII’s  new 
foundation,  287,  &c.  ; char- 
ter of  incorporation,  287  ; 
during  Great  Rebellion,  324, 
329 ; Church  goods  temp 
Commonwealth,  332  ; con- 
dition temp  Restoration  of 
Monarchy,  336 ; choir 
wainscoted  (1675),  342 ; 

services  in  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, 343  ; panelling  re- 
moved from  the  choir,  360  ; 
Austin’s  reredos,  360 ; In- 
come of  Dean  and  Chapter, 
365  ; repairs  in  the  nine- 
teenth century,  362,  366 ; 
fire  of  1872,  369;  choir 
reseated  (1879),  368  ; recent 
repairs,  369  et  seq. 

College  in  Oxford,  250,  251, 
269,  278 

Priory  of  Christ  Church  : in 
Saxon  times,  17,  18  ; Lan- 
franc’s  reforms,  33  ; Theo- 
bald’s reforms,  49 ; growth 
of  the  power  of  the  monks, 
102-16 ; privileges  granted 
by  Becket,  103  ; exile  of  the 
monks,  120  ; quarrel  between 
monks  and  citizens,  1 34 ; 
monastic  life,  220  ; obedien- 
tiaries, 223-257  ; income  and 
expenditure,  245-7 ; ser- 
vant’s wages,  and  allowances, 
257-8 ; hours  of  divine 
service,  259  ; Maunday,  248  ; 
scriptorium,  261  ; plays  and 
minstrels,  262  ; meals,  263  ; 
sermons,  264  ; surrender  to 
Henry  VIII’s  commissioners, 
218 

Caroe,  Mr.  W.  E.,  367,  370,  371 

481 


2 II 


INDEX 


Cawston,  Thomas,  obituary  of,  403 
Cellarer,  230-4 ; account  rolls  of, 

398  m 

Cemetery  gate,  362-3 
Chamberlain,  monastic,  241  ; ac- 
count rolls  of,  398 
Chapman,  Archdeacon,  tomb  of,  70 
Champyon,  Dr.,  312 
Chantry  Chapels : Arundel’s,  194  ; 
Black  Prince’s,  152,  156  ; Brench- 
ley’s,  203  ; Buckingham’s,  152, 
182  ; Henry  IV’s,  191  ; Lady 
Mohun’s,  185  ; Warham’s,  214- 
15 

Chapel,  Almonry,  139  ; St.  Anselm, 
41,42;  St.  Andrew,  176,277,363; 
St.  Bartholomew,  285  ; St.  Blaise, 
73  ; St.  Benedict,  73  ; Dean’s, 
307  ; St.  Gabriel,  50,  440  ; Lady, 
171,  203,  204  ; in  the  Crypt,  157- 
8 ; St.  Michael’s,  201-2 ; 
Nevill,  203  ; Prior’s,  128 ; St. 
Thomas,  83,  94,  98 
Chapter  House,  138,  176,  301,  370 
Charles  I,  325  ; picture  of,  342 
Charte,  Mr.,  312 
Charters  of  Christ  Church,  397 
Chartham,  Robert,  253 
Chatillon,  Cardinal,  tomb  of,  307 
Cheker  building,  139,  367 
“ Cheker  of  the  Hope,”  181 
Chicheley,  Abp.,  195,  196;  tomb 
of,  196-7,  380,  381 
Chikwell,  Hamo  de,  146 
Chillenden,  Adam,  Prior,  133,  268 
Chillenden,  Thomas,  Prior,  54,  166, 
269  ; building  operations  of,  167— 
186,  vestments,  &c.,  acquired  by, 
181  ; tomb  of,  187 
Chilton,  Nich.,  255 
Choir-screens,  137,  138,  172 
stalls,  137  ; removed,  346 
Choristers,  294,  445,  449,  457-8; 
school,  367,  459 

Christ  Church, Priory  of,  see  Canter- 
bury Cathedral ; gate,  210,  212, 
356  note 
482 


City  wall  rebuilt,  178,  207 
Clarence,  Thomas,  Duke  of,  201 ; 
tomb  of,  202 

Clarke,  J.  W.,  on  Mediaeval  Libra- 
ries, 379 

Clement  VIII,  Pope,  215 
Clement  of  Maidstone,  193 
Clerke,  John,  314 

Clock  (1292),  136  and  note  ; dam- 
aged by  fire,  369 

Cloister,  Great,  rebuilt,  176,  177, 
188 

Codex  Aureus , 383 
Coleman,  Eustace,  314 
Colet,  Dean,  274 

Coligny,  Odet  de,  see  Chatillon, 
Cardinal 

Colman,  Robert,  313 
Common  Table,  293 
Conrad,  Prior,  45,  265 
Consistory  Court,  274 
Coombe,  Dr.  Thomas,  benefaction 
to  Library,  390 
Copes  “ Profession,”  278 
Copton,  Mr.,  312 
Corona,  100,  278,  349 
Court  at  Street,  216 
Courtenay,  Abp.  Will.,  159,  164, 
I77>  J78 

Cranmer,  Abp.  Thomas,  216,  218 ; 
letter  of,  288,  291  ; Prebendaries 
conspire  against,  295 
Cretinge,  Hugh  de,  130 
Croft,  James,  Archdeacon  of  Can- 
terbury, 354 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  354 ; Thomas, 
217,  219 

Crumbesfeld,  382 

Crypt,  1 3 ; Lanfranc’s,  29 ; Ern- 
ulf’s,  41  ; carvings  in,  50 ; floor 
raised,  158  ; improvements  in, 
21 1 ; beneath  Trinity  Chapel, 
300 

Culmer,  Richard,  216,  322,  325, 
330  ; Cathedral  news  by,  327- 
8 ; Six-Preacher,  328 
Cuthbert,  Abp.,  relics  of,  283 


INDEX 


Dance,  George,  senior,  architect, 

349 

Danyell,  Canon,  312 
David,  King  of  Scotland,  46 
Davis,  Roger,  panelling  in  the 
Choir  by,  342 

Dean  and  Prebends  of  New  Founda- 
tion, 288,  and  note 
Deanery,  299 

Deans,  pre-Norman,  21,  22 
Delasaux,  George,  369 
Deportum=  common  room,  227,  256, 

2 57 

Dering,  Richard,  216,  279 
Dormitory,  monastic,  23  ; repaired 
by  Chillenden,  176 
Doulting  Stone,  371 
Drumme,  Mr.,  312 
Dunfermline,  Abbot  of,  265 
Dunstan,  Abp.,  see  St.  Dunstan 
“ Dunstan  ” Bell,  199 
Dunster,  John  de  Mohun,  Baron  of, 
185 

Durant,  Edward,  199,  and  note 
John,  333 

Durovernum= Canterbury,  4,  5,  6 

Eadmer’s  description  of  pre-Nor- 
man Church,  19-21 
Lanfranc’s  Church,  24 
Eastry,  Henry  of,  Prior,  135,  144; 
building  operations  of,  136-143  ; 
letters  of,  140  ; burial-place,  144 
Ecclesiastical  Commission  (1836), 
364,  366,  369 

Ecclesiastical  Suits,  rolls  relating  to, 

399 

Ediva,  Queen,  relics  of,  283 
Edmund,  Abp.,  quarrel  with  monks, 
127 ; retires  to  Pontigny,  128  ; 
Altar  of,  128,  132 
Edward  the  Confessor,  78  ; statue 
of,  172  ; altar  of,  191 
Edward  I,  King  of  England,  133  ; 

his  marriage  at  Canterbury,  143 
Edward  II,  visit  of,  to  Canterbury, 
H3 


Edward  III,  visit  of,  to  Canterbury, 
146,  182 
Edward  IV,  206 

Edward  of  Woodstock  (Black  Prince) 
at  Canterbury,  146,  148,  152 ; 
Chantry  Chapel  of,  156  ; burial, 
159;  tomb,  159,  160;  epitaph, 
160  ; achievements,  161  ; sword, 
161,  and  note ; bequests  to 
Christ  Church,  162 
Elham,  John,  Prior,  203,  270 
Elias  of  Dereham,  77 
Elizabeth,  Queen,  304 ; visit  to 
Canterbury,  305 
Elmer,  Prior,  265 
Elphy,  Mr.  (Minor  Canon),  312 
Emma,  Queen  Consort  of  Canute, 
15 

Erasmus’  description  of  the  shrine 
of  St.  Thomas,  79-80 ; Lady 
Chapel,  158  ; visit  to  Canterbury, 
272-3 

Erfastus,  Bishop  of  Thetford,  33 
Ernulf,  Prior,  39,  265 
Ethelbert,  King,  6 ; baptism  of,  9 ; 

statue  on  choir  screen,  172 
Evesham,  Abbot  of,  114,  267 

Fairs  in  the  Precincts,  209,  229,  318, 

359 

Farrar,  Dean,  368,  370 
Feramin,  Master,  111 
Ferrars,  Henry  de,  182 
Finance,  monastic,  245 
Finch,  John,  Prior,  67,  68,  163-5 
Fishpond,  monastic,  54 
Fitzurse,  Reginald,  64,  67 
Folliot,  Gilbert,  Bishop  of  Hereford, 
59, 60, 63 

Font,  pre-Reformation,  320 ; 
Bishop  Warner’s,  320  ; removed 
to  Water  Tower,  350 
Foster,  Will,  314 
Franciscan  Friars,  landing  of,  123 
Franklyn,  John,  320 
Frater  House,  23  ; rebuilt,  124 ; 
demolished,  330 

483 


INDEX 


French  Church  in  the  crypt,  307- 
9 ; Laud’s  attack  on,  321 

Gardener  (Canon),  312 
Gasworks,  Cathedral,  366 
Gate,  Christ  Church,  210,  212  note  ; 
turrets  removed,  212 ; in- 
scription on,  213;  Juxon’s 
doors,  337 

Green-Court,  room  over,  built, 

. l77 

Geddington,  Council  of,  1 1 1 
Geoffrey,  Prior,  1 17,  265 
Geoffrey  II,  Prior,  265 
Gerald  de  Barri,  49 
Gervase’s  description  of  Lanfranc’s 
nave,  30 ; rebuilding  of  choir, 
90,  98 

Gilbert?  Rev.  George,  Reminis- 
cences of,  355 

Gilbert  de  Glanville,  Bishop  of 
Rochester,  117 

Giles,  Master,  physician  to  prior, 
256 

Gillingham,  Richard,  Prior,  269 
Gilson,  Mr.  J.  P.,  his  report  on 
MSS.  of  Christ  Church  Canter- 
bury, 396 

Gisnes,  Count  of,  121 
Glastonbury,  Abbot  of,  213  ; con- 
troversy with  Prior  of  Christ 
Church  concerning  the  relics  of 
St.  Dunstan,  213,  214 
Glasyer,  Hugh  (Canon),  312 
“ Glory  Cloth,”  316 
Gloucester,  Abbot  of,  265  ; college 
in  Oxford,  251 

Gloucester,  masons  trained  at,  165 
Godmersham,  Rectory  of,  168 
Godwin,  Dean,  306 
Goldson,  Mr.  (Canon),  312 
Goldston  I,  Thomas,  Prior,  199, 
203,  205,  270 

Goldston  II,  Prior,  210,  21 1,  271, 
280  ; burial-place,  213,  216 
Goldwell,  Thomas,  Prior,  215,  217, 
218  ; letter  of,  219,  271 

484 


“ Gloriet,”  270 

Grandorge,  Dr.,  bequest  of,  347 
Gray,  Sir  Henry,  204 
Green-Court  gateway,  51 
Gregory  IX,  Pope,  Bull  concerning 
Peter’s  pence,  403 
Grig,  Dr.  76 
Grille,  iron,  in  nave,  171 
Grim,  Edward,  68 
Grosseteste,  Robert,  Bishop  of 
Lincoln,  133  ; treatises  by,  403 
Gualeran,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  104 
Guest-chambers,  new,  165 
Guillaume  de  Sens,  architect  of  the 
choir,  91  ; accident  to,  92 

Hackington,  Abp.  Baldwin’s  Col- 
legiate Church  at,  107-14 
Hadleigh,  W.,  251 
Hales,  Sir  Christopher,  218 
Halstow,  Lower,  382 
Hamilton,  Lady  Emma,  356 
Hangings,  arras,  279 
Harbledown,  St.  Nicholas  Hospital 
at,  303 

Harrison,  Benjamin,  his  benefaction 
to  the  Library,  390 
Hartlip,  Simon  of,  127 
Hartover,  Christopher,  Altar-screen 
338 

Hathbrand,  Robert,  Prior,  147-8  ; 
works  of,  1 57-9  ; burial-place  of, 

J59»  2^9  -.L 

Henry  II,  King  of  England,  58,  64 ; 
penance  of,  74,  75,  105  ; death, 
112 

Henry  III,  King  of  England,  77, 
78  ; crowned  at  Canterbury,  127 
Henry  IV,  King  of  England,  statue 
of  on  choir  screen,  172  ; burial, 
188;  tomb,  191 ; Chantry  Chapel 
of,  191,  193 
Henry  V,  195,  196 
Henry  VI,  205 

Henry  of  Blois,  Bishop  of  Winches- 
ter, 48 

Henry  of  Eastry,  Prior,  see  Eastry 


INDEX 


Herlewin,  Prior,  266 
Herne,  Brother  Thomas,  278 
Herring,  Archbishop,  letter  of,  353 
Herse  cloth,  372 
Holland,  Canon  Francis,  118 
Horne,  Dean,  alterations  to  the 
fabric  of  the  Church  by,  349,  350 
Honorius,  Prior,  no,  112,  266 
Hope,  Mr.  W.  H.  St.  John,  161, 
174,  204,  276 

Hopper,  Thomas,  architect,  360-1 
Horsea,  Hugh  de,  68 
Horsfelde,  52,  55 
Howley,  Abp.,  362,  363,  390 
Howley-Harrison  Library,  389,  390 
Hubert  de  Burgh,  77 
Hubert  Walter,  Archbishop,  115, 
1 1 7,  1 19;  tomb  opened  in  1890, 
118 

Hulme,  St.  Benedict’s  Abbey,  265 
Hunte,  Mr.  (Canon),  312 


Ickham,  Mr.,  312 
Infirmary,  monastic,  15 1,  252 
Ingram,  Brother  Will.,  381 
Innocent  III,  Pope,  121 
Irving,  Sir  Henry,  370 
Isabella,  Queen,  consort  of  Ed- 
ward II,  144 

Islip,  Abp.,  tomb  of,  273,  349 


Jackson,  Dr.  (Canon),  331 
Jaenbert,  Abp.,  19 


James,  Dr.  M.  R.,  280,  note,  379, 

387 

Jeffries,  Judge,  313 
Jeremiah,  Prior,  265 
Joan  Plantagenet,  the  Fair  Maid  of 
Kent,  156 

Jocelyn,  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  63 
John  of  Chatham,  Prior,  127,  267 
John,  King  of  England,  75,  119,  120, 
121 

John  of  Sittingbourne,  Prior,  267 
Johnson,  Thomas,  137,  314 
Jordan  the  Painter,  140 
Juxon,  Abp.,  337,  389 


Kellett,  Will.,  Legend  of,  422 
Kent,  Holy  Maid  of,  see  Barton, 
Elizabeth 

Killygreve,  Mr.,  314 
Kilwardby,  Abp.,  133 
King’s  School,  140,  291-293 
Kitchen,  monastic,  152 
Kydder,  John,  313 

Lady  Chapel,  new,  171 
Lambeth,  Abp.  Baldwin’s  and  Abp- 
Hubert’s  Collegiate  Church 
at,  1 14,  1 15 
Conference  (fifth),  376 
Library,  duplicate  books  given 
to  Canterbury,  390 
Lancaster,  Henry,  Earl  of,  147 
Lanfranc,  Abp.,  23,  25  ; gifts  of, 
35  ; relics  of,  98,  283 
Langdon,  John,  Warden  of  Canter- 
bury College,  letter  of,  251 
Langton,  Abp.  Stephen,  75,  77,  120, 
122  ; tomb  of,  202  ; Moralia,  403 
Laud,  Abp.,  31 1,  315  ; visitation  of, 
316-8  ; revision  of  statutes,  319 
Lay  Clerks,  313  ; stipends  of,  449  ; 

petition  to  Abp.  Laud,  451,  453 
Layton,  Dr.,  letter  of,  217,  385 
Lee,  Will.,  313 

Legge,  Dr.  Wickham,  Inventories  of 
Christ  Church  by,  284 
Leland,  John,  167,  194 
Lewcombe,  Richard,  313 
Lewes,  battle  of,  133 
Lewis  VII,  King  of  France,  82,  94  ; 

grant  of  wine  by,  97 
Leysted,  John,  313 
Library  of  Dean  and  Chapter,  377— 
404 ; earliest  catalogue,  379 ; 
rebuilt  by  Chicheley,  380  ; estates 
for  upkeep,  381  ; books  bought 
in  1551  ; new  (1868),  390  ; MSS., 
396;  Bunce’s  catalogue  (1806), 
.395 

Linacre,  Thomas,  207 
Lindesfarne  Gospels,  383 
Living,  Abp.,  relics  of,  283 

485 


INDEX 


Lollards,  198 
London,  Dr.,  295 
Luithard,  Bishop,  6 
Luxmore,  Dr.  (Canon),  356 
Lyall,  Dean,  365,  366 
Lychfeld,  Mr.,  312 

Mac-Durnan,  Gospels  of,  378, 

384 

Maces,  silver,  for  vergers,  338  note 
Malmesbury,  William  of,  33 
Manners -Sutton,  Abp.,  354,  359 
Mantell,  Roger,  313 
Mapylton,  Thomas,  architect  of  the 
S.W.  tower 
Marden,  John,  313 
Margaret,  Queen  Consort  of 
Henry  VI,  203,  205 
Marian  reaction,  ornaments,  &c., 
acquired  during,  301-2 
Mary  Tudor,  Queen  of  England, 
343 

“Master  Omers,”  181,  201,  225, 

238,  307 

Maunday  Thursday,  ceremony  on, 
263 

Mens  a Magistri , 15 1,  252 
Mensura  beatce  Maria  virginis , 
283 

Meopham,  Abp.,  memorial  window 
to,  147 

Minor  Canons,  287,  449  ; houses  of, 
temp  Commonwealth,  330 
Mohun,  Lady,  tomb  of,  185 
Molash,  Will.,  Prior,  198,  200,  270, 
Mongeham,  Stephen,  Prior,  159, 
269 

Monins,  Thomas,  328,  331 
Montreuil,  Madame  de,  visit  to 
Canterbury  of,  8 1 
Moreville,  Hugh  de,  64 
Muniments  of  the  Christ  Church, 

39L  392>  394>  395,  397  . 

Music,  extra  in  mediaeval  times,  445 
note 

Myllys,  Mr.  (Canon),  312 
Mystagogus,  79 

486 


Nantes,  revocation  of  the  Edict  of, 
3ii 

Navarre,  Joan  of,  Queen  Consort  of 
Henry  IV,  191 
Necessarium , monastic,  21 1 
Nelson,  Dr.  (Canon),  355 
Nevill,  Dean,  203,  387 
Newbury,  Father  (Minor  Canon), 
295,  312 

New  Lodging,  the,  225,  237 
Nicholas  of  Sandwich,  Prior,  268 
Nigel,  William  Fitz,  1 10 
Nixon,  Dorothea,  benefaction  of, 
362  . 

Noldekyn,  Reginald,  137 
Norman  staircase,  234 
Norreys,  Roger,  Prior,  no,  1 13-14 
Norris,  Samuel,  auditor,  399 
Northfleet,  rectory  of,  195 
Northgate,  St.  John’s  Hospital  in, 
303 

North-Hall,  234,  237 
North  Holmes,  52 

“ Oaks,”  the,  337  note 
Odo,  Abbot  of  Battle,  104 ; Prior, 
266 

Omers,  Meister,  see  Master  Omers, 
30,  112 

Organ,  Cathedral,  452,  454-6,  478, 
479 ; specifications  of,  465— 
7° 

builders,  Rawnce,  Nich.,  448  ; 
Blankard,  Jasper,  449;  Pearse, 
Lancelot,  454 ; Smith,  Ber- 
nard, 454 ; Harris,  Renatus, 
454  ; Knopple,  John,  455  ; 
Bridge,  Richard,  455 ; 
Green,  Samuel,  456  ; Long- 
hurst,  456 

Orpington,  Ralph  of,  127 
Osbert,  Prior,  267 
Ostiarius  Chori , 279 
Otforde,  Mr.,  312 
Oxenden,  Richard,  Prior,  145,  148  ; 
burial-place,  H7 
Solomon,  268 


INDEX 


Oxford,  Canterbury  College  in,  200  ; 

269  ; see  also  Canterbury  College 
Oxney,  John,  Prior,  81,  270 

Palace,  Archiepiscopal,  34,  299, 

304.  371 

Pallium , controversy  concerning, 

37  ; ceremony  at  the  reception  of, 

38 

“ Paradise  and  Heaven,”  165 
Parkehurst,  Mr.  (Canon),  312 
Parker,  Abp.  Matthew,  visitation 
articles  of,  304 ; entertainment 
by,  305  ; a collector  of  books, 
386 

Pascal  candle,  281,  293 
Paske,  Dr.  (Vice-Dean),  letters  of, 
3H 

Patriarchal  seat,  47,  78,  282 ; re- 
moved from  primitive  position, 

360,  364 

Payne,  Smith,  Dean,  368-9,  375 
Pearson  George  (Hon.  Can.),  70 
note , 368 

Peckham,  East,  manor  of,  39 
Peckham,  Abp.,  140  ; tomb,  141 
Peel,  John  (Canon),  355 
Peirce,  John,  petition  of,  335 
Pentise,  178,  234 
Percy,  Dean,  354 
Perron,  Count,  153 
Peterborough,  Abbot  of,  265,  266 ; 
monks,  251 

Petham,  William,  Prior,  270 
M’eticanon’s  Hall,  the,  293 
Petworth  marble,  use  of,  101 
Pews  erected  in  choir  (1704),  346 
Pfyffers,  Theodore  (sculptor),  366 
Philippa,  Queen,  visit  of,  to  Canter- 
bury, 146 

Pikenot,  Brother  John,  work  of,  in 
the  cloister,  124 
Pisa,  Council  of,  185,  186 
Plague,  148  ; cattle,  245 
Plant,  Joseph,  Grammar  Master  of 
the  choristers,  459 
Plantagenet,  Joan,  152 


Plate,  Church,  alienated,  297  ; gift 
of  by  Cardinal  Pole,  301  ; sold, 
325  ; lent  by  Independents,  333  ; 
purchased  at  Restoration,  338,  341 
Player,  Thomas,  333 
Players  and  minstrels,  262 
Pole,  Cardinal,  139,  301,  303  ; 

Chapel,  303  ; tomb,  303 
Pontigny,  267 
Porch,  south-west,  200 
Porter  of  the  Gate,  allowances  to, 
258 

Portugal,  Crown  Prince  of,  45  note 
Powys,  Dean,  354,  355 
Preachers  (Six),  see  Six-Preachers 
Prebendaries,  names  of  first,  288 
note , 3 1 1 ; married  deprived, 
303  ; numbers  reduced,  364 
Prebendal  Houses  temp  Common- 
wealth, 330  ; pulled  down,  365 
Precentor  in  monastic  times,  226 ; 
modern,  460 

Precincts,  Houses  in,  temp  Common- 
wealth, 330 

“ Precum  Days,”  meaning  of,  457 
Prior  of  Christ  Church,  election  of, 

223;  jurisdiction  sedevacanti, 

224  ; privileges  granted  by 

Popes,  225  ; lodgings,  177, 

225  ; chapel,  226  ; servants, 

226 

Chaplains’  Rolls,  398 
Prior,  Mr.  E.  G.,  171 
Proctor,  Robert,  306 
Pudner,  Humphrey,  349  note 
Pulpit  in  choir,  363  ; in  nave,  375 
Puritanism  in  Kent,  317,  323 
Pyx,  curious  arrangement  for,  174 

Queningate,  178 

Rawlinson,  Canon,  371 ; Mrs., 

375 

Red  Door,  the,  73 
Refectory,  see  Frater-House 
“ Regale  ” of  France,  82,  94 
Reginald,  Sub-prior,  120 


487 


INDEX 


Registers,  monastic,  391,  399,  400-1 
of  Dean  and  Chapter,  400 
Relics,  catalogue  of,  284 
Reliquary  cupboard,  276 
Remigius,  Bishop  of  Dorchester,  33 
Reynolds,  Abp.  Walter,  letters  of, 
140-143  ; tomb,  142,  244,  262 
Rich,  Sir  Richard,  218 
Richard  I,  King  of  England,  visit  of, 
to  Canterbury,  75,  113 
Richard,  Abp.,  91,  102 
Richard  II,  King  of  England,  164, 
173,  185,  186,  191 

Ringmere,  Thomas,  Prior,  134,  135  ; 

resignation  of,  135,  268 
Rochester,  monks  of,  104 
Roger  of  St.  Alphege,  Prior,  128, 
268  ; sermons  of,  404 
Roger  of  Lee,  Prior,  128,  267 
Roger  Norreys,  Prior,  266 
Rogers,  Dean,  306 
Rouen,  Abp.  of,  114 
Rood,  Great,  46,  274 ; in  south 
aisle  of  nave,  274 
Ross,  Bishop  of,  191,  199 
Ruton,  Richard,  278 
Ryche,  Mr.,  314 
Rydley,  Dr.,  312 

Sacrist,  monastic,  228,  229 ; in- 
come and  expenditure,  229 ; 
house  of,  230  ; rolls,  398 
St.  Alphege,  church  of,  308 
St.  Alphege,  martyrdom  of,  14 ; 
shrine,  47,  281,  297  ; translation 
of  relics,  97 

St.  Andrew,  chapel  of,  176,  277, 

363 

St.  Anselm,  36-8  ; death  of,  42  ; 
canonisation,  45  ; shrine,  284  ; 
relics  of,  350-3 

St.  Anselm’s  chapel,  window  in, 
147  ; restored,  440 
St.  Apollinare  Nuova,  church  of,  at 
Ravenna,  12 

St.  Apollonia,  picture  of,  144 
St.  Audoen,  1 3 ; altar  of,  285 

488 


St.  Augustine,  relic  of,  213  ; Psalter 
of,  383 

St.  Bartholomew,  chapel  of,  285 
St.  Benedict,  rule  of,  222  ; chapel 
of,  67,  70,  73 
St.  Bertin,  abbey  of,  121 
St.  Blaise,  13  ; chapel  of,  67,  70, 
74  ; shrine,  282 

St.  Christopher,  painting  of,  303 
St.  Clement,  altar  of,  285 
St.  Denis,  Church  of,  Measure  of 
our  Lord  in,  282 

St.  Dunstan,  translation  of  relics 
of,  97  ; scrutiny  of  shrine,  213, 
214,  281,  297 

St.  Edmund  of  Abingdon,  ring  of, 
73,  228,  275 
St.  Furse,  20 
St.  Gabriel,  chapel  of,  50 
St.  Gregory,  altar  of,  20  ; priory 
of»  52>  77 

St.  James,  hospital  of,  ill 
St.  John  the  Baptist,  altar  of,  285 
St.  John  the  Evangelist,  altar  of, 
248,  282 

St.  John  Lateran  (Rome),  Measure 
of  our  Lord  in,  283 
St.  Katherine,  altar  of,  285 
St.  Leger,  Mr.  (Canon),  31 1 
St.  Martin,  altar  of,  21,  283  ; 

church,  William,  rector  of,  131 
St.  Mary,  oratory  of,  21  ; chapel, 
1 71,  203  ; measure  of,  283  ; 
chapel  in  the  crypt,  157-158 
St.  Mary  Magdalene,  altar  of,  285 
St.  Michael,  chapel  of,  201,  202  ; 

room  over,  202 
St.  Nicholas,  altar  of,  284 
St.  Odo,  relics  of,  98  ; shrine,  284 
St.  Osyth,  picture  of,  144 
SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  altar  of,  284 
St.  Paulinus,  altar  of,  285 
St.  Thomas  the  Apostle,  altar  of, 
285 

St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury,  see 
Becket,  Thomas 
Chapel,  98-99,  282 


INDEX 


St.  Wilfred,  13  ; shrine  of,  285 
Salisbury,  Jocelyn,  Bishop  of,  63 
Salisbury,  John  of,  31,  55 
Salkyer,  Richard,  380 
Saltwood  Castle,  64 
Sancroft,  Abp.,  390 
Sandwich,  Bartholomew  of,  127 
Sandys,  Colonel,  323-4 
Sarisbury,  John,  Prior,  270 
School  of  the  Archbishop,  55,  250  ; 

King’s,  250 
Scott,  G.  G.,  30 
Sir  Gilbert,  100 
Scotus,  Duns,  404 
Screen,  Choir,  140,  172,  173,  342 
Scriptorium,  382,  383,  385 
Seals  of  the  Prior  and  chapter,  16, 
123,  398 

Searles,  Mr.,  312 
Sede  Vacante  documents,  392 
Sellinge,  William,  Prior,  206-7  5 
tomb  of,  210,  251,  270,  381 
Selmeston,  Thomas,  278 
Sermons,  258,  366  ; in  the  Chapter 
House,  300,  323,  344 
Seneschal  of  the  Liberties,  258 
Services,  Church,  temp  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, 304-5 
Sheldon,  Abp.,  341-2 
Sheppard,  J.  B.,  report  on  the 
archives  for  the  Historical  MSS. 
Commission,  395 

Sherlock,  Abp.,  visitation  of,  349 
Shuckford,  Dr.,  letter  of,  353 
Simpson,  Dr.  (Canon),  392 
Siric,  Abp.,  relics  of,  282 
Sittingbourne,  Prior  John  of,  267 
Six-Preachers,  names  of  the  first, 
312  ; houses  of,  212,  288,  330 
Smallwell,  John  (joiner),  346-7 
Somerset,  John,  Earl  of,  201  ; tomb, 
202 

Somner,  William,  MSS.  of,  pur- 
chased by  Dean  and  Chapter,  389 
Spire  of  N.W.  steeple  built,  138  ; 

pulled  down,  346 
Spry,  Dr.  (Canon),  his  account  of 


the  opening  of  the  tomb  of 
Henry  IV,  193 

Stained  glass,  124;  destruction  of 
at  Reformation,  327  ; by  Puri- 
tans, 327  ; description  of,  405- 
38 

Stalls,  choir,  280 
Stationarii , 253 

Statutes  of  Henry  VIII,  288 ; 

Laud’s  revision  of,  319 
Stephen,  King,  crowned  at  Canter- 
bury, 48 

Stephens,  William,  313 
Stone,  John,  64  ; chronicle  of,  256 
Stratford,  Abp.,  146-8 
Succentor,  monastic,  226 
Sudbury,  Abp.,  159 ; murder  of, 
163  ; tomb,  164 
Sumner,  Abp.,  363 
Supremacy,  Royal,  oath  taken  by  the 
Prior  and  Convent,  217 
Surrender  of  the  Priory  of  Christ 
Church,  218 

“ Suthdore,”  the,  20,  29 
Survey  of  Precincts  temp  Common- 
wealth, 329-32 
Swifte,  William,  313 
Sydall,  Dr.  (Canon),  346 
S.S.,  collar  of,  192 

“ Table-Hall  ” of  the  Infirmary, 
15 1 

Tait,  Abp.,  31 1 
Tankerville,  Master  W.,  256 
Temple,  Abp.,  371,  375 
Tenison,  Abp.,  347 
Tewkesbury,  Abbot  of,  266 
Teynham,  Archiepiscopal  manor 
house  at,  117 

Theobald,  Abp.,  48,  55,  58 
Theodore,  Abp.,  schools  of,  55  ; 

relics  of,  98,  250,  3 77,  386 
Thornden,  Richard,  Bishop  of 
Dover,  296,  300-1,  31 1 
Thornton,  John,  Prior  of  Dover  and 
assistant  bishop  to  Abp.  Warham, 
215 

1 489 


INDEX 


Throne,  Archiepiscopal,  347  ; new, 

363 

Thyrlwall,  Richard,  385 
Tilley,  see  Sellinge,  William 
Tillotson,  Dean,  345 
Towers,  Western,  31  ; Central, 
207-10 ; N.W.,  360,  371 
Tracy,  William,  64,  67,  68 
Treasurers  of  the  Priory,  245  ; rolls 
of,  398 

Treasury,  the,  50 

Ufford,  John  de,  Abp.,  148 
Umfrey,  Brother  Thomas,  251 
Universities,  Canterbury  students 
at,  251,  291 

Vauxhall,  manor  of,  155 
Wace,  Dean,  370 

Walkelin,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  33, 

37 

Walkyngton,  Thomas  of,  402 
Walloons,  see  French  Protestants 
Walter  Durdent,  Prior,  265 
Parvus,  Prior,  265 
III,  Prior,  267 
of  Colchester,  77 
Ware,  Thomas,  362 
Warham,  Abp.,  213 ; Chantry 
Chapel  of,  214 

Warner,  John,  Bishop  of  Rochester, 
320,  389,  391 

Warwick,  Thomas  de  Beauchamp, 
Earl  of,  182 

Wastell,  John,  master  mason,  208 
Waterworks  of  Priory  of  Christ 
Church,  51,  55  note , 21 1 
Water  Tower,  53,  54  ; raised,  176 
Watts,  William,  letter  of,  393 
Welfitt,  Dr.  (Canon),  355,  359 
Welles,  Mr.  313 


Wellys,  Will,  Bishop  of  Norwich, 
202 

Westwell,  rectory  of,  168 
White,  Jesse,  356  note , 365 
Whitgift,  John,  Abp.,  386 
Whitewashing  of  Churches,  175 
Whittlesey,  Abp.,  tomb  of,  273, 
349 

Wibert,  Prior,  51,  266 
Willement,  Thomas,  heraldic 
notices  of  Canterbury  Cathedral 
by,  188 

William  the  Conqueror,  sign  manual 
of,  33 

William  Rufus,  36 
William  the  Englishman,  architect 
of  the  retro-choir,  93,  94,  98 
William  the  Lion,  King  of  Scotland, 
75 

Rector  of  St.  Martin’s,  Canter- 
bury, 1 31 
of  Norwich,  404 
Winchelsey,  Abp.,  141,  142 
Winchester,  council  of,  32  ; Cathe- 
dral, Nave  of,  171 
Wodensburgh,  John,  Prior,  187, 
196  ; tomb  of,  198,  269 
Woghope,  William,  165 
Wolsey,  Cardinal,  215-328 
Wotton,  Nicholas,  Dean,  294-5, 
298,  391 

Wulfred,  Abp.,  charter  of,  12,  note  ; 
relics,  283 

Wulfhelm,  Abp.,  relics  of,  282 
Wultstan,  Bishop  of  Worcester,  33 
Wybert,  Prior,  see  Wibert 

York,  Edward,  Duke  of,  205 
Roger,  Abp.  of,  63 
Thomas,  33,  36 

Yngworth,  Richard,  Bishop  of 
Dover,  296 


BALLANTYNE  & COMPANY  LTD 
Tavistock  Street  Covent  Garden 
London 


GETTY  RESEARCH  INSTITUTE 


3 3125  01335  7211 


